Legal Opinion
Pally v. F. W. Woolworth & Co.
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided February 2, 1949PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin, J.
The codefendant Joseph Schifferdecker, moves to strike out the cross complaint of the defendant F. W. Woolworth & Co., pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Civil Practice Act, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The complaint in the action alleges that while the plaintiff was shopping in the store of F. W. Woolworth & Co., she was set upon and bitten by a dog, owned by the codefendant, Joseph Schifferdecker, which dog it is alleged was known by both defendants to be of a ferocious and vicious disposition.
The defendant F. W. Woolworth & Co., in its…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Iroquois Gas Corp. v. International Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. CraigMissouri Court of Appeals · 1959
- Lane v. Celanese Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1950
- Oliver v. McPhersonNew York Supreme Court · 1960