Wolf v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Wolf

22 A.D.2d 420

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 420 (Wolf v. Wolf) 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

Wolf v. Wolf, 22 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order [No. 7920], entered on March 13, 1964, granting defendant’s motion, as amended, to the extent of requiring a separate stating and numbering of the causes of action and denying the other relief sought by the parties without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The allegations of the complaint which recite defendant’s breach of the separation agreement with respect to the various obligations of payment assumed thereunder by him, constitute one cause of action which should be pleaded separately and apart from those allegations referable to the demand for “punitive damages.” The order [679]*679appealed from is not inconsistent with this conclusion and is therefore affirmed. We do not pass upon the issues raised by the motion addressed to the complaint nor the requests for summary judgment. Those matters should await the filing of an amended complaint. Order [No. 7921], entered on March 13, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order [No. 7920], entered on March 13, 1964, granting defendant’s motion, as amended, to the extent of requiring a separate stating and numbering of the causes of action and denying the other relief sought by the parties without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The allegations of the complaint which recite defendant’s breach of the separation agreement with respect to the various obligations of payment assumed thereunder by him, constitute one cause of action which should be pleaded separately and apart from those allegations referable to the demand for “punitive damages.” The order [679]*679appealed from is not inconsistent with this conclusion and is therefore affirmed. We do not pass upon the issues raised by the motion addressed to the complaint nor the requests for summary judgment. Those matters should await the filing of an amended complaint. Order [No. 7921], entered on March 13, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-wolf-nyappdiv-1964.