Grant Cole Enterprises, Inc. v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant Cole Enterprises, Inc. v. Schwartz

33 A.D.2d 1005, 308 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1005 (Grant Cole Enterprises, Inc. v. Schwartz) 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

Grant Cole Enterprises, Inc. v. Schwartz, 33 A.D.2d 1005, 308 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered March 6, 1969, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for legal insufficiency unanimously affirmed on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Leave however is granted to plaintiffs, in the interests of justice to apply at Special Term to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry thereof. (See CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827.) The disposition of Special Term was sound. However, there is a bare possibility plaintiff may be able to spell out a cause of action sounding in malpractice or prima facie tort, and both parties being members of the Bar, this ultimate opportunity is extended. (See, also, Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, MeGivem and Maeken, JJ.

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

Order entered March 6, 1969, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for legal insufficiency unanimously affirmed on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Leave however is granted to plaintiffs, in the interests of justice to apply at Special Term to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry thereof. (See CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827.) The disposition of Special Term was sound. However, there is a bare possibility plaintiff may be able to spell out a cause of action sounding in malpractice or prima facie tort, and both parties being members of the Bar, this ultimate opportunity is extended. (See, also, Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, MeGivem and Maeken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1005, 308 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-cole-enterprises-inc-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1970.