Snyder v. General Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snyder v. General Mills, Inc.

12 A.D.2d 732, 208 N.Y.S.2d 236

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 732 (Snyder v. General Mills, 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

Snyder v. General Mills, Inc., 12 A.D.2d 732, 208 N.Y.S.2d 236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The cross claim of defendant, Becker Market, Inc., might be construed as one seeking recovery over based upon breach of warranty as well as negligence. Upon argument of the appeal, however, Becker Market, Inc., in substance has made the claim more definite and certain by a concession that it was not intended to allege a cause of action for recovery over based upon the theory of any breach of warranty by defendant, General Mills, Inc. There remains a claimed right to recover over for certain alleged negligent acts of defendant, General Mills, Inc. Examined in the light of the allegations in the complaint, we find the cross claim to be sufficient. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion by General Mills, Inc., for a dismissal of the cross claim of defendant Becker Market, Inc.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The cross claim of defendant, Becker Market, Inc., might be construed as one seeking recovery over based upon breach of warranty as well as negligence. Upon argument of the appeal, however, Becker Market, Inc., in substance has made the claim more definite and certain by a concession that it was not intended to allege a cause of action for recovery over based upon the theory of any breach of warranty by defendant, General Mills, Inc. There remains a claimed right to recover over for certain alleged negligent acts of defendant, General Mills, Inc. Examined in the light of the allegations in the complaint, we find the cross claim to be sufficient. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion by General Mills, Inc., for a dismissal of the cross claim of defendant Becker Market, Inc.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 732, 208 N.Y.S.2d 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-general-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1960.