Legal Opinion
Wendell v. Sleppin
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1957PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge M. Fanelli, J.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs ’ amended complaint for legal insufficiency has been referred by Mr. Justice Coyne to the undersigned, who heretofore dismissed plaintiffs’ original complaint. (See 7 Misc 2d 304.)
While as a general rule a motion addressed to the sufficiency of a complaint is properly denied if any one of the causes of action set forth in the complaint is sufficient (Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N. Y. 79; Ingraham v. Anderson, 1 A D 2d 743), nevertheless, defendants in their brief indicate that the instant motion is addressed solely to the first…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Adams v. ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Greyhound Corp. v. Commercial Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Buckley v. 112 Central Park South, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Taylor v. CowitNew York Supreme Court · 1963