Legal Opinion

Zaepfel v. Parnass

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammer, J.

Upon a motion to dismiss the complaint, such as is here under consideration, the sole question to be considered is whether the allegations of the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegations are taken as admitted. (Tracey v. Sullivan, 131 Misc. 553; Baumann v. Baumann, 222 App. Div. 460.) Liberal construction is given to the complaint. (Bown v. Ramsdell, 227 App. Div. 224.) Every intendment and fair inference must be drawn from the facts stated. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover on any theory on the facts in the complaint, the motion must be denied.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Mitchell v. . Rochester Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Marks v. Nambil Realty Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
  4. Dyer v. Broadway Central BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  5. Baumann v. BaumannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Draper v. MULLENNEXOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Halpern v. SilverCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
  3. Schusterman v. C & F Caterers, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1948
  4. DeRosa v.BlochCity of New York Municipal Court · 1934
  5. Michigan Alkali Co. v. Bankers Indemnity Ins.District Court, S.D. New York · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API