Woolf v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woolf v. Reed

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

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 777 (Woolf v. Reed) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 777, 224 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolf-v-reed-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack