From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Delaware Hudson Railroad Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 12, 1965
23 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

March 12, 1965


Special Term correctly ordered stricken certain subdivisions of paragraphs of the plaintiffs' complaints ( Bastek v. Lehigh New England R.R. Co., 9 A.D.2d 692; Ames v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 18 Misc.2d 1075). The appellants rely heavily on Danbois v. New York Cent. R.R. Co. ( 12 N.Y.2d 234) but that case did not concern pleading and is in no way at variance with the long-recognized rules discussed in Bastek and Ames. The court was correct also in not granting leave to the plaintiffs to serve amended complaints as proof of all of the stricken allegations may, insofar as legally admissible, be received under the remaining allegations of the complaints. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cook v. Delaware Hudson Railroad Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 12, 1965
23 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Cook v. Delaware Hudson Railroad Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FORREST F. COOK et al., Appellants, v. DELAWARE HUDSON RAILROAD CORP.…

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

Date published: Mar 12, 1965

Citations

23 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Szolosi v. Long Is. R.R

On the other hand, a more pervasive problem persists on a substantive level. We could not disregard the…