Legal Opinion

Pitzalis v. Prudential Insurance of America

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

Decided June 15, 1933Published

1Per curiam

Defendant is not proceeding strictly under rule 103, but is asking that plaintiff be compelled to elect between two causes of action claimed to be stated in his complaint and that thereafter the claimed cause of action not adopted be stricken from the complaint. In the circumstances we do not pass upon the sufficiency of the complaint wholly or partially. The causes of action claimed to be stated in plaintiff’s individual and administrative capacities are not “ consistent with each other.” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 258.) It is the joinder of plaintiffs and their causes of action with which we are…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Moss v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  2. Gerseta Corp. v. Silk Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
  3. Doyle v. . CarneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
  4. Hall v. FisherNew York Supreme Court · 1855
  5. Kelso v. CavanaghNew York Supreme Court · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API