Springer v. Duveen
This text of 173 A.D. 962 (Springer v. Duveen) 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.
Opinion
The two orders appealed from involve the same question, to wit, the sufficiency of the first cause of action stated in the complaint, and for convenience have been argued and will be considered together. We have examined the cause of action demurred to and have carefully compared it with the complaint as to which a demurrer was sustained by this court on a former appeal (164 App. Div. 878), and are unable to find any substantial difference between them or anydifferenee at all except [963]*963slight changes in the matter of verbiage. Upon the authority of our former decision, therefore, the cause of action demurred to is insufficient inlaw. It follows that, in so far as appealed from, each order must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the demurrer to the first cause of action sustained and the motion for judgment upon said cause of action granted, with ten dollars costs. Inasmuch as this is plaintiff’s third, attempt to frame a sufficient complaint no leave to further amend will be granted. Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Smith and Davis, JJ., concurred. Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and demurrer to first cause of action sustained, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
173 A.D. 962, 158 N.Y.S. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springer-v-duveen-nyappdiv-1916.