Gottesman v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottesman v. Glass

260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 935 (Gottesman v. Glass) 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

Gottesman v. Glass, 260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for breach of contract, order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint for rescission of the contract, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the time of plaintiff to serve said amended complaint is extended until ten days after the entry of the order hereon. The alleged breach of the contract consists of various acts of unfair competition, but there is no allegation that defendant agreed to refrain from unfair competition. A copy of the contract is not annexed to the complaint and no provision of the contract upon which liability is based is pleaded. There[936]*936fore, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for breach of contract, order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint for rescission of the contract, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the time of plaintiff to serve said amended complaint is extended until ten days after the entry of the order hereon. The alleged breach of the contract consists of various acts of unfair competition, but there is no allegation that defendant agreed to refrain from unfair competition. A copy of the contract is not annexed to the complaint and no provision of the contract upon which liability is based is pleaded. There[936]*936fore, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottesman-v-glass-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack