Ramberg v. Cosmo Salads, Inc.

In a stockholder’s derivative action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 3, 1966 which denied their motion: (1) to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to serve an amended complaint conforming to CPLR 3014 as directed by a prior order of said court wherein plaintiff was directed separately to state and number her alleged causes of action, i.e., an individual cause of action and a stockholder’s derivative cause of action or (2) in the alternative, to require plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (O’Hara v. Derschug, 232 App. Div. 31). Defendants’ time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.