Connelly v. American East India Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connelly v. American East India Corp.

57 A.D.2d 518, 393 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11421

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

DecidedApril 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 518 (Connelly v. American East India Corp.) 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

Connelly v. American East India Corp., 57 A.D.2d 518, 393 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court,. New York County, entered December 14, 1976, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to an application for leave to replead at Special Term. In an order dated June 18, 1976, Justice Tierney granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint for insufficiency with leave granted to the plaintiff to replead. Justice Rosenberg, in an order dated August 31, 1976, denied plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended complaint with leave to the plaintiff to renew such motion upon proper papers that included the original complaint. In the instant order, entered December 14, 1976, Justice Rosenberg denied the renewed motion on the ground that there was no substantive difference between the original and the amended complaints. For several years, the plaintiff served as defendant’s president. Upon plaintiffs retirement in 1974, three pending lawsuits, in which the defendant was involved, were assigned to him. The proceeds of the lawsuits were to be for the account of Employment Counsellors, Inc., a corporation owned by the plaintiff. After one of the lawsuits was settled, a dispute arose between the parties as to whether the.entire settlement was to be paid directly to the [519]*519plaintiff or whether the legal fees in that proceeding were to be deducted before distribution was made. Justices Tierney and Rosenberg correctly found that the original and amended complaints did not contain a clear and concise statement of the underlying facts (CPLR 3014). However, from what can be gleaned from the record, the plaintiff may well be able to frame an .intelligible complaint based upon breach of contract. Therefore, while affirming, we do so without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to make application, at Special Term, upon a proper evidentiary showing, for leave to serve a properly drawn and a comprehensible complaint. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court,. New York County, entered December 14, 1976, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to an application for leave to replead at Special Term. In an order dated June 18, 1976, Justice Tierney granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint for insufficiency with leave granted to the plaintiff to replead. Justice Rosenberg, in an order dated August 31, 1976, denied plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended complaint with leave to the plaintiff to renew such motion upon proper papers that included the original complaint. In the instant order, entered December 14, 1976, Justice Rosenberg denied the renewed motion on the ground that there was no substantive difference between the original and the amended complaints. For several years, the plaintiff served as defendant’s president. Upon plaintiffs retirement in 1974, three pending lawsuits, in which the defendant was involved, were assigned to him. The proceeds of the lawsuits were to be for the account of Employment Counsellors, Inc., a corporation owned by the plaintiff. After one of the lawsuits was settled, a dispute arose between the parties as to whether the.entire settlement was to be paid directly to the [519]*519plaintiff or whether the legal fees in that proceeding were to be deducted before distribution was made. Justices Tierney and Rosenberg correctly found that the original and amended complaints did not contain a clear and concise statement of the underlying facts (CPLR 3014). However, from what can be gleaned from the record, the plaintiff may well be able to frame an .intelligible complaint based upon breach of contract. Therefore, while affirming, we do so without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to make application, at Special Term, upon a proper evidentiary showing, for leave to serve a properly drawn and a comprehensible complaint. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 518, 393 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connelly-v-american-east-india-corp-nyappdiv-1977.