In an action to recover damages for death caused by the alleged negligent operation of an automobile, the second cause of action is alleged against the father of the owner and operator of the automobile on the theory that he was negligent in furnishing the automobile to the son. Order denying appellant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve a new complaint within ten days after the entry of the order hereon, if he be so advised. The second cause of action is insufficient. It fails to allege any causal connection between the accident and any act or conduct of the appellant. Furthermore, the allegation that the appellant gave the automobile, or the funds out of which it was purchased, to the other defendant, is consistent with liability and non-liability. Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.