Musco v. Pares
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The motion which resulted in the order appealed from was apparently made pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. It was made, not only on the pleading attacked, but also on the original complaint, which had previously been dismissed, the papers submitted on the previous motion, and the decision of the Special Term therein. The order appealed from similarly recites that it is made on the amended complaint, and also on the previous papers and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Clark Paper & Manufacturing Co. v. StenacherNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Rager v. McCloskeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hubbs & Hastings Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Walker v. GerliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burgundy Basin Inn, Ltd. v. Watkins Glen Grand Prix Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976