Legal Opinion

Jagiello v. Jagiello

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1961PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJohn H. Farnham, J.

Defendant moves under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that neither of the two causes of action alleged in the complaint sets forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. While it is true that the complaint does not set forth specifically different causes of action, it appears that various causes of action are spelled out in the complaint. The pertinent facts which should be stated in order to resolve this motion are as follows:

*585Carol Jagiello is the mother and guardian of the infants, Natalie Jagiello and Edwin T.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American Surety Co. v. ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Enthoven v. EnthovenNew York Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Bishop v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1953

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Karron v. KarronNew York Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API