From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

William A. Schulz Co., Inc. v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 1961
13 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

March 14, 1961


Order entered October 17, 1960, granting reargument and on such reargument denying defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for legal insufficiency unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The amended complaint satisfies the rule in Williams Co. v. Collins Tuttle Co. ( 6 A.D.2d 302). It does so despite the fact that the allegations could have been more direct and clear as to the tortious elements upon which the complaint rests. With respect to defendant's assertion that the three-year lapse increased plaintiffs' obligation to specify additional facts, that argument is not available on a motion addressed to the pleading's sufficiency. Such an argument, however, might be cogent, indeed, upon a motion which searches the evidentiary support for plaintiff's claim.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

William A. Schulz Co., Inc. v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 1961
13 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

William A. Schulz Co., Inc. v. Lefrak

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM A. SCHULZ CO., INC., et al., Respondents, v. HARRY LEFRAK et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 14, 1961

Citations

13 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)