Case ID: ad2d_13/html/0738-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katherine Raptis, Respondent, v. Grand Union Company, Appellant.
   — Order entered on or about January 9, 1961, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for legal insufficiency under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant and the motion granted, with $10 costs, with leave, in the exercise of discretion, to plaintiff-respondent to serve a further amended complaint. The allegations of breach of covenant are patently conclusory and, therefore, insufficient. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.