Drew v. Woodin — 150 N.Y.S. 1083

Majority

p. 1083

DREW, Appellant, v. WOODIN, Respondent, et al.

(No. 6676.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Headnote

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by John A. Drew against William H. W.oodin, impleaded, etc. From an order

p. 1084

.granting motion to make complaint more definite and certain, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.

W. Bourke Cockran, of New York City, for appellant.

David Leventritt, of New York for respondent.

The order appealed from should be modified as follows, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs: Subdivision A: Stricken out. Subdivision B: Stricken out. Subdivision C: Amended so as to read as follows: “Whether defendant Woodin, or the board of directors of which he was a member, received any part of the amount referred to in paragraph twenty-fifth of the amended complaint as ‘various sums aggregating $5,500,000,’ and ‘additional undivided profits with various constituents.’ ” Subdivision D: Strike out the last 14 words thereof: “And, if a part, what amount was so received, and when it was received.” Subdivision E: Strike out the last 21 words thereof: “And, if a part of said sum, what amount so disappeared, and, if so, what said wrongful acts or negligence consisted of.” Subdivision F: Stricken out.