Edelman v. Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelman v. Connor

43 A.D.2d 562, 349 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 562 (Edelman v. Connor) 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

Edelman v. Connor, 43 A.D.2d 562, 349 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for alleged acts of defendant with respect to a certain auction sale, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 16, 1973, which inter alla denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, except that by his brief he has excluded from the appeal so much of the order as denied the dismissal application insofar as it was based on a claim of absence of personal jurisdiction over him. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer denied and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action granted. In our opinion, the complaint fails to state a cause of action (cf. Potter v. Minskoff, 2 AD 2d 513; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, 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 alleged acts of defendant with respect to a certain auction sale, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 16, 1973, which inter alla denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, except that by his brief he has excluded from the appeal so much of the order as denied the dismissal application insofar as it was based on a claim of absence of personal jurisdiction over him. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer denied and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action granted. In our opinion, the complaint fails to state a cause of action (cf. Potter v. Minskoff, 2 AD 2d 513; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 562, 349 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelman-v-connor-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack