Delane Check Cashing Corp. v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delane Check Cashing Corp. v. Katz

127 A.D.2d 735, 511 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43221

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 735 (Delane Check Cashing Corp. v. Katz) 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

Delane Check Cashing Corp. v. Katz, 127 A.D.2d 735, 511 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated July 16, 1985, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint states a legally sufficient cause of action to recover damages for fraud and, therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) was properly denied. The defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s reliance was unjustified might, if proven, constitute a defense, but it does not impair the sufficiency of the complaint. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated July 16, 1985, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint states a legally sufficient cause of action to recover damages for fraud and, therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) was properly denied. The defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s reliance was unjustified might, if proven, constitute a defense, but it does not impair the sufficiency of the complaint. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 735, 511 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delane-check-cashing-corp-v-katz-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack