Safer Beef Co. v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Safer Beef Co. v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 479, 222 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 479 (Safer Beef Co. v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Safer Beef Co. v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 479, 222 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

A majority of us believe that from a reading of the complaint it does not appear that a cause of action is sufficiently stated within the requirement of subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Section 241 of the Civil Practice Act provides that every pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts upon which a party relies. While pleadings are to be liberally construed, it is not intended to change the basic requirement that a complaint should contain such plain and concise statement as the afore-mentioned rule provides. The pleading, read in its entirety, might well contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. However “ The court should not be compelled to wade through a mass of verbiage and superfluous matter in order to pick out

[480]*480an allegation here and there, which, pieced together with other statements taken from another part of the complaint, will state a cause of action.” (Isaacs v. Washougal Clothing Co., 233 App. Div. 568, 572.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A majority of us believe that from a reading of the complaint it does not appear that a cause of action is sufficiently stated within the requirement of subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Section 241 of the Civil Practice Act provides that every pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts upon which a party relies. While pleadings are to be liberally construed, it is not intended to change the basic requirement that a complaint should contain such plain and concise statement as the afore-mentioned rule provides. The pleading, read in its entirety, might well contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. However “ The court should not be compelled to wade through a mass of verbiage and superfluous matter in order to pick out

[480]*480an allegation here and there, which, pieced together with other statements taken from another part of the complaint, will state a cause of action.” (Isaacs v. Washougal Clothing Co., 233 App. Div. 568, 572.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 479, 222 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safer-beef-co-v-northern-boneless-beef-inc-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack