Stornelli v. United States Gypsum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stornelli v. United States Gypsum Co.

244 A.D. 891

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 891 (Stornelli v. United States Gypsum Co.) 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

Stornelli v. United States Gypsum Co., 244 A.D. 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order dismissing the complaint affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Taylor, J., who dissent in part and vote for reversal and denial of the motion in so far as causes of action Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. (See prevailing and dissenting opinions filed May 15, 1935, in Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. and five companion cases, ante, p. 606.) Order denying motion to amend complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The proposed amended complaint as compared with the original complaint is mainly repetitious and does not state any new sufficient cause of action. All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action for personal injuries caused by contracting pneumoconiosis.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order dismissing the complaint affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Taylor, J., who dissent in part and vote for reversal and denial of the motion in so far as causes of action Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. (See prevailing and dissenting opinions filed May 15, 1935, in Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. and five companion cases, ante, p. 606.) Order denying motion to amend complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The proposed amended complaint as compared with the original complaint is mainly repetitious and does not state any new sufficient cause of action. All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action for personal injuries caused by contracting pneumoconiosis.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stornelli-v-united-states-gypsum-co-nyappdiv-1935.