William A. Schulz & Co. v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William A. Schulz & Co. v. Lefrak

13 A.D.2d 462, 211 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12084

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 462 (William A. Schulz & Co. v. Lefrak) 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

William A. Schulz & Co. v. Lefrak, 13 A.D.2d 462, 211 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 17, 1960, granting reargument and on such reargument denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint [463]*463for legal insufficiency unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The amended complaint satisfies the rule in Williams & Co. v. Collins Tuttle & Co. (6 A D 2d 302). It does so despite the fact that the allegations could have been more direct and clear as to the tortious elements upon which the complaint rests. With respect to defendant’s assertion that the three-year lapse increased plaintiffs’ obligation to specify additional facts, that argument is not available on a motion addressed to the pleading’s sufficiency. Such an argument, however, might be cogent, indeed, upon a motion which searches the evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered October 17, 1960, granting reargument and on such reargument denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint [463]*463for legal insufficiency unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The amended complaint satisfies the rule in Williams & Co. v. Collins Tuttle & Co. (6 A D 2d 302). It does so despite the fact that the allegations could have been more direct and clear as to the tortious elements upon which the complaint rests. With respect to defendant’s assertion that the three-year lapse increased plaintiffs’ obligation to specify additional facts, that argument is not available on a motion addressed to the pleading’s sufficiency. Such an argument, however, might be cogent, indeed, upon a motion which searches the evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 462, 211 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-a-schulz-co-v-lefrak-nyappdiv-1961.