Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.

280 A.D. 913, 116 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 913 (Smith v. D. A. Schulte, 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

Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., 280 A.D. 913, 116 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Order on defendant’s appeal, insofar as it strikes out defendant’s second defense and counterclaim, unanimously affirmed. Order on plaintiff’s appeal unanimously modified by striking out defendant’s first and third counterclaims as insufficient in law, with $20 costs and printing disbursements, and with leave to serve a further amended answer within ten days after service of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry thereof. These counterclaims are deficient in failing to allege the nature of the duties which plaintiff Wendell H. Smith was called upon to perform for defendant D. A. Schulte, Inc., and to allege facts and circumstances from which damage would naturally result. The particular items of damage need not be stated, but facts must be alleged which are claimed to have caused the damage. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, jP. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ. [See post, p. 979.]

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

Order on defendant’s appeal, insofar as it strikes out defendant’s second defense and counterclaim, unanimously affirmed. Order on plaintiff’s appeal unanimously modified by striking out defendant’s first and third counterclaims as insufficient in law, with $20 costs and printing disbursements, and with leave to serve a further amended answer within ten days after service of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry thereof. These counterclaims are deficient in failing to allege the nature of the duties which plaintiff Wendell H. Smith was called upon to perform for defendant D. A. Schulte, Inc., and to allege facts and circumstances from which damage would naturally result. The particular items of damage need not be stated, but facts must be alleged which are claimed to have caused the damage. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, jP. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ. [See post, p. 979.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 913, 116 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-d-a-schulte-inc-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack