From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pilinko v. Merlau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 17, 1958
7 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

October 17, 1958

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Williams, Bastow, Goldman and Halpern, JJ. [ 10 Misc.2d 63.]


Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs, with leave to plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein. Memorandum: The complaint is based on alternative theories of negligence, one of which is conceded to be without merit. It is well settled that unless such a pleading is good as to both alternatives it must be dismissed as insufficient. ( Potter v. Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632, affd. 196 N.Y. 576; Johansson v. Kemp, 211 App. Div. 276.) All concur.


Summaries of

Pilinko v. Merlau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 17, 1958
7 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Pilinko v. Merlau

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH PILINKO et al., Respondents, v. FRANCES MERLAU, Defendant, and…

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

Date published: Oct 17, 1958

Citations

7 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Carroll v. Doolittle

It is a well-established principle that unless both alternate theories are sufficient in law, the cause of…

A a Tube Testing Co., Inc. v. Sohne

In each of the five causes of action the allegation that the defendants "knew or should have known" of the…