Falco v. G. E. S. Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falco v. G. E. S. Enterprises, Inc.

67 A.D.2d 693, 412 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 693 (Falco v. G. E. S. Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Falco v. G. E. S. Enterprises, Inc., 67 A.D.2d 693, 412 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to rescind a written lease, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 27,1977, as granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants purport to cross-appeal from another portion of said order. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The cross appeal was not [694]*694perfected in accordance with the rules of this court (see Howe Ave. Nursing Home v Nafus, 54 AD2d 686). Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ cross motion denied. The complaint seeks rescission for fraud in the inducement, not for breach of contract. As such, it properly states a cause of action (see Mills Studio v Chenango Val. Realty Corp., 15 AD2d 138). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to rescind a written lease, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 27,1977, as granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants purport to cross-appeal from another portion of said order. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The cross appeal was not [694]*694perfected in accordance with the rules of this court (see Howe Ave. Nursing Home v Nafus, 54 AD2d 686). Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ cross motion denied. The complaint seeks rescission for fraud in the inducement, not for breach of contract. As such, it properly states a cause of action (see Mills Studio v Chenango Val. Realty Corp., 15 AD2d 138). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 693, 412 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falco-v-g-e-s-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack