Andretto Bank A. G. v. Goodbody & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andretto Bank A. G. v. Goodbody & Co.

10 A.D.2d 696, 197 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 696 (Andretto Bank A. G. v. Goodbody & Co.) 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

Andretto Bank A. G. v. Goodbody & Co., 10 A.D.2d 696, 197 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. On argument plaintiff conceded that the theory of the pleading is that under Swiss law he does not have to allege or prove special damages, and that if he is required to allege and prove special damages his allegations in that respect are insufficient under the pleading rule in New York. On this concession, and also because at this stage of the proceedings the condition of the Swiss law is a question of fact to be tried, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s pleading is insufficient with regard to the causes of action for defamation or for intentional tort since it may be that under Swiss law, unlike New York law, such causes of action exist without necessity of establishing special damages. If, however, such establishment is necessary under Swiss law, plaintiff would be well advised to seek leave to amend his pleading. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. On argument plaintiff conceded that the theory of the pleading is that under Swiss law he does not have to allege or prove special damages, and that if he is required to allege and prove special damages his allegations in that respect are insufficient under the pleading rule in New York. On this concession, and also because at this stage of the proceedings the condition of the Swiss law is a question of fact to be tried, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s pleading is insufficient with regard to the causes of action for defamation or for intentional tort since it may be that under Swiss law, unlike New York law, such causes of action exist without necessity of establishing special damages. If, however, such establishment is necessary under Swiss law, plaintiff would be well advised to seek leave to amend his pleading. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 696, 197 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andretto-bank-a-g-v-goodbody-co-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack