Legal Opinion
Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 22, 1989PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Robert G. Hurlbutt, J.
All defendants, acting through counsel for defendant Eastman Chemical Products, Inc., move for an order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint upon various grounds and pursuant to various subdivisions of CPLR 3211 (a). Essentially, dismissal is sought on two bases — facial deficiencies in the complaint amounting to failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), and failure to comply with CPLR 3013, and that the action may not be maintained because assertion of the various causes of action in the complaint is barred by the respective Statutes of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Guggenheimer v. GinzburgNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Thornton v. Roosevelt HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Estate of Re v. Kornstein Veisz & WexlerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Glod v. Morrill Press Division of Engraph, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Allied Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1995