History
  • No items yet
midpage
Woolf v. Reed
15 A.D.2d 777
N.Y. App. Div.
1962
Check Treatment

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 *778third 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Woolf v. Reed
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Feb 27, 1962
Citation: 15 A.D.2d 777
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.