¶1Defendant’s motion seeks a dismissal of the entire complaint consisting of seven causes of action. The first cause seeks to recover gn gmount representing the balance due upon the agreed weekly *771payment of $100. It is admitted in the answer that defendant terminated the contract on August 10, 1954, effective January 15, 1954. While the contract may or may not have been one terminable at will, we find no provision therein authorizing an antedated termination. An issue of fact is presented as to plaintiff’s right to recover the weekly payments. If any cause of action in a complaint is sufficient, a motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 must be denied (Heaman v. Rowell Co., 233 App. Div. 335). We pass upon no other question. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein, Babin and Bergan, JJ.
1 A.D.2d 770
Stone v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 31, 1956
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1956-01-31
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1956-01-31
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2000
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →