Amendola v. Lianides

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amendola v. Lianides

8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8539

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 735 (Amendola v. Lianides) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amendola v. Lianides, 8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

-Appeals from an order denying the motion of the appellants Crocker and Lianides and the motion of the appellants Bastís and Sea Fare Restaurant, Inc., to strike out certain allegations of the amended complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 103) and to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficiency (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, stibd. 4). Respondents, two stockholders of a corporation, brought this action to recover damages for wrongful acts committed in pursuance of an alleged conspiracy between appellants Crocker and Lianides (the other two stockholders of the corporation), appellants Bastís and Sea Fare Restaurant, Inc. (the purchasers of the property of the corporation at a purported foreclosure sale), and another. The amended complaint alleged certain wrongful acts which destroyed, inter alla, respondents’ rights under certain agreements between themselves and appellants Crocker and Lianides. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Greenfield v. Benner, 6 A D 2d 263, motion for leave to appeal granted 6 A D 2d 1034.) Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the complaint, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

-Appeals from an order denying the motion of the appellants Crocker and Lianides and the motion of the appellants Bastís and Sea Fare Restaurant, Inc., to strike out certain allegations of the amended complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 103) and to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficiency (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, stibd. 4). Respondents, two stockholders of a corporation, brought this action to recover damages for wrongful acts committed in pursuance of an alleged conspiracy between appellants Crocker and Lianides (the other two stockholders of the corporation), appellants Bastís and Sea Fare Restaurant, Inc. (the purchasers of the property of the corporation at a purported foreclosure sale), and another. The amended complaint alleged certain wrongful acts which destroyed, inter alla, respondents’ rights under certain agreements between themselves and appellants Crocker and Lianides. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Greenfield v. Benner, 6 A D 2d 263, motion for leave to appeal granted 6 A D 2d 1034.) Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the complaint, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendola-v-lianides-nyappdiv-1959.