Legal Opinion

Nicholson v. Close

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

Decided January 26, 1940PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

Under the fair intendment rule we are of opinion that" there are sufficient allegations of ultimate facts contained in paragraphs eleventh and sixteenth of the complaint upon which to ■ predicate a cause of action against some one. However, the plaintiff by the use of the words “ some or all of them ” has made the *489complaint so indefinite that none of the defendants is charged with any particular wrongdoing. This form of pleading was specifically condemned in Gundlach v. Consolidated Gas Co., Inc. (Callahan, J., below; affd., 257 App. Div. 930). (See, also, Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gerdes v. ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. Jamison v. LambornAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  3. Garrett v. McAllister & Royal Securities Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Gundlach v. Consolidated Gas. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ebenstein v. PritchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API