Schulz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

254 A.D. 641, 3 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6841

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 641 (Schulz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) 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

Schulz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 254 A.D. 641, 3 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified by providing that paragraphs seventh and fourteenth and the second alleged cause of action in the fourth amended complaint be struck out, with the privilege to the plaintiff to serve the fifth amended complaint upon payment of ten dollars costs, within twenty days, and as so modified [642]*642affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Paragraph seventh is not a sufficient allegation either of payment or of good tender or of any other material matter. Paragraph fourteenth is meaningless. The second alleged cause of action is wholly redundant. The whole complaint might well be redrafted in the interest of conciseness and clarity. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, in an action on an insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order modified by providing that paragraphs seventh and fourteenth and the second alleged cause of action in the fourth amended complaint be struck out, with the privilege to the plaintiff to serve the fifth amended complaint upon payment of ten dollars costs, within twenty days, and as so modified [642]*642affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Paragraph seventh is not a sufficient allegation either of payment or of good tender or of any other material matter. Paragraph fourteenth is meaningless. The second alleged cause of action is wholly redundant. The whole complaint might well be redrafted in the interest of conciseness and clarity. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, in an action on an insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 641, 3 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulz-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-nyappdiv-1938.