From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woolf v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 1962
15 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

February 27, 1962


Order, entered on or about May 4, 1961, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Defendants moved pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Where a motion is addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint as a whole, it is properly denied if any one of the causes set forth is sufficient. ( Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N.Y. 79; Kriger v. Industrial Rehabilitation, 8 A.D.2d 29, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 958.) The third cause of action, in contract, in our opinion is clearly sufficient, and it is unnecessary to decide, nor do we pass upon, the sufficiency of the other causes of action. (See, also, Lerman v. Johnson, 280 App. Div. 935; Ingraham v. Anderson, 1 A.D.2d 743).

Concur — Rabin, J.P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Woolf v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 1962
15 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Woolf v. Reed

Case Details

Full title:CYD WOOLF, as Executrix of STANLEY WOOLF, Deceased, Respondent, v. R.T…

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

Date published: Feb 27, 1962

Citations

15 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)