Andlou Properties, Inc. v. Grayck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andlou Properties, Inc. v. Grayck

24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 716 (Andlou Properties, Inc. v. Grayck) 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

Andlou Properties, Inc. v. Grayck, 24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 4, 1964, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, and with leave however to plaintiff to apply to Special Term to serve an amended complaint on proper papers. (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827; CPLR 3211, subd. [e].) The complaint fails to allege facts to support the conclusory allegations of damages. The first cause of action fails to allege facts supporting the claim that plaintiff would have been entitled to recover the amounts here sought from the insurance companies under the policies in question except for appellant’s alleged malpractice. (Cf. Vooth v. McEachen, 181 N. Y. 28; Schmitt v. McMillan, 175 App. Div. 799.) The second cause of action, against appellant as agent of Howburt Realty, Inc., and others, failed to allege any duty owing to the plaintiff. The third cause of action, grounded on the omission of Grayck, fails to allege facts constituting a cause of action against the appellant. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered December 4, 1964, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, and with leave however to plaintiff to apply to Special Term to serve an amended complaint on proper papers. (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827; CPLR 3211, subd. [e].) The complaint fails to allege facts to support the conclusory allegations of damages. The first cause of action fails to allege facts supporting the claim that plaintiff would have been entitled to recover the amounts here sought from the insurance companies under the policies in question except for appellant’s alleged malpractice. (Cf. Vooth v. McEachen, 181 N. Y. 28; Schmitt v. McMillan, 175 App. Div. 799.) The second cause of action, against appellant as agent of Howburt Realty, Inc., and others, failed to allege any duty owing to the plaintiff. The third cause of action, grounded on the omission of Grayck, fails to allege facts constituting a cause of action against the appellant. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andlou-properties-inc-v-grayck-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack