Battista v. Potofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Battista v. Potofsky

13 A.D.2d 992, 216 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10206

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

DecidedJune 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 992 (Battista v. Potofsky) 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

Battista v. Potofsky, 13 A.D.2d 992, 216 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against an unincorporated association, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated October 3, 1960, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. As against defendant in his representative capacity, the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to show that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, an unincorporated association (Martin v. Curran, 303 N. Y. 276). Beldock, Ughetta and Brennan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Christ, J., concur on the ground stated and on the additional ground that no actionable fraud is pleaded in the present complaint,

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

In an action against an unincorporated association, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated October 3, 1960, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. As against defendant in his representative capacity, the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to show that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, an unincorporated association (Martin v. Curran, 303 N. Y. 276). Beldock, Ughetta and Brennan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Christ, J., concur on the ground stated and on the additional ground that no actionable fraud is pleaded in the present complaint,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 992, 216 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battista-v-potofsky-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack