Dhooge Bros. v. Mecho
15 A.D.2d 774, 224 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11209
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 27, 1962·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts establishing misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the moving defendant who was not a party to the contract. “ Fraud cannot be inferred, it must be proved.” (Anderson v. Malley, 191 App. Div. 573, 575.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dhooge Bros. v. Mecho, 15 A.D.2d 774, 224 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).
15 A.D.2d 774 (Dhooge Bros. v. Mecho) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Vom Lehn v. Astor Art Galleries, Ltd.
86 Misc. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Reeder v. Mastercraft Electronics Corp.
297 F. Supp. 815 (S.D. New York, 1969)