Woolf v. Reed

15 A.D.2d 777, 224 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217

Opinion

Defendants moved pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Where a motion is addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint as a whole, it is properly denied if any one of the causes set forth is sufficient. (Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N. Y. 79; Kriger v. Industrial Rehabilitation, 8 A D 2d, 29, affd. 7 N Y 2d 958.) The [778]*778third cause of action, in contract, in our opinion is clearly sufficient, and it is unnecessary to decide, nor do we pass upon, the sufficiency of the other causes of action. (See, also, Lerman v. Johnson, 280 App. Div. 935; Ingraham v. Anderson, 1 A D 2d 743). Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Woolf v. Reed, 15 A.D.2d 777, 224 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

15 A.D.2d 777 (Woolf v. Reed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co.
70 N.E.2d 401 (New York Court of Appeals, 1946)
Lerman v. Johnson
280 A.D. 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)