Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Friedman

141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6877

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

DecidedJune 21, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 401 (Friedman v. Friedman) 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

Friedman v. Friedman, 141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1987, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must liberally construe the pleadings most favorably to the plaintiff (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562), and examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether one has been properly stated. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636.)

Applying these standards to the within complaint, we are satisfied that a cause of action for fraud is sufficiently stated. [402]*402Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1987, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must liberally construe the pleadings most favorably to the plaintiff (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562), and examine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether one has been properly stated. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636.)

Applying these standards to the within complaint, we are satisfied that a cause of action for fraud is sufficiently stated. [402]*402Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack