Shore Road Holding Corp. v. Air Modern, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shore Road Holding Corp. v. Air Modern, Inc.

18 A.D.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 842 (Shore Road Holding Corp. v. Air Modern, 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

Shore Road Holding Corp. v. Air Modern, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the purchaser of an air-condensing unit against the defendants Air Modern, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, who are, respectively, the seller and manufacturer of said equipment, to recover damages arising out of its alleged unsuitability for plaintiff’s purposes, in which the facts were pleaded in the complaint as a single cause of action, (defendant Westinghouse appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 18, 1962, which denied its motion to direct plaintiff to serve an amended complaint (a) making the plaintiff’s pleading more definite ánd certain as to whether the gravamen of its cause of action was breach of warranty or fraud and deceit; and (b) separately stating its causes of action against each defendant (Rules Civ. Prae., rules 102, 90). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements; appellant’s time to answer the complaint extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the purchaser of an air-condensing unit against the defendants Air Modern, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, who are, respectively, the seller and manufacturer of said equipment, to recover damages arising out of its alleged unsuitability for plaintiff’s purposes, in which the facts were pleaded in the complaint as a single cause of action, (defendant Westinghouse appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 18, 1962, which denied its motion to direct plaintiff to serve an amended complaint (a) making the plaintiff’s pleading more definite ánd certain as to whether the gravamen of its cause of action was breach of warranty or fraud and deceit; and (b) separately stating its causes of action against each defendant (Rules Civ. Prae., rules 102, 90). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements; appellant’s time to answer the complaint extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shore-road-holding-corp-v-air-modern-inc-nyappdiv-1963.