Dotsis v. Manniello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dotsis v. Manniello

4 A.D.2d 779, 165 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 779 (Dotsis v. Manniello) 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

Dotsis v. Manniello, 4 A.D.2d 779, 165 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside certain deeds, the appeal is from so much of an order as dismissed the second and third causes of action in the second amended complaint for insufficiency. Order modified so as to deny the motion to dismiss said causes of action. As so modified order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. In our opinion, the third cause of action is sufficient (see Allen V. La Vaud, 213 N. Y. 322; Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213; Parish, v. Juckett, [780]*780147 App. Div. 424 ; 2 Abbott’s Forms of Pleading [2d ed.], pp. 1948-1955). As the first and third causes of action are sufficient, the second is also sufficient (see Magonigle Trucking Go. v. Tambini, 302 N. Y. 617; Keller V. Levy, 265 App. Div. 723). Wenzel, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Ughetta, J., concur in result.

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

In an action to set aside certain deeds, the appeal is from so much of an order as dismissed the second and third causes of action in the second amended complaint for insufficiency. Order modified so as to deny the motion to dismiss said causes of action. As so modified order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. In our opinion, the third cause of action is sufficient (see Allen V. La Vaud, 213 N. Y. 322; Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213; Parish, v. Juckett, [780]*780147 App. Div. 424 ; 2 Abbott’s Forms of Pleading [2d ed.], pp. 1948-1955). As the first and third causes of action are sufficient, the second is also sufficient (see Magonigle Trucking Go. v. Tambini, 302 N. Y. 617; Keller V. Levy, 265 App. Div. 723). Wenzel, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Ughetta, J., concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 779, 165 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotsis-v-manniello-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack