From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. D.A. Schulte, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 7, 1952
280 App. Div. 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion

October 7, 1952.

Present — Peck, P.J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ. [See post, p. 979.]


Order on defendant's appeal, insofar as it strikes out defendant's second defense and counterclaim, unanimously affirmed. Order on plaintiff's appeal unanimously modified by striking out defendant's first and third counterclaims as insufficient in law, with $20 costs and printing disbursements, and with leave to serve a further amended answer within ten days after service of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry thereof. These counterclaims are deficient in failing to allege the nature of the duties which plaintiff Wendell H. Smith was called upon to perform for defendant D.A. Schulte, Inc., and to allege facts and circumstances from which damage would naturally result. The particular items of damage need not be stated, but facts must be alleged which are claimed to have caused the damage. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Smith v. D.A. Schulte, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 7, 1952
280 App. Div. 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Smith v. D.A. Schulte, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WENDELL H. SMITH, Respondent-Appellant, v. D.A. SCHULTE, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 7, 1952

Citations

280 App. Div. 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Citing Cases

Daukas v. Shearson, Hammill Co., Inc.

Also, it is immaterial that the complaint fails to disclose the method or the detail of computing the general…

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C. v. 49 Bleecker, Inc.

Under CPLR 3019 (d), a cause of action contained in a counterclaim must be treated as if it were contained in…