Holly v. Holly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holly v. Holly

78 A.D.2d 673, 434 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13172

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 673 (Holly v. Holly) 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

Holly v. Holly, 78 A.D.2d 673, 434 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to impress a constructive trust upon certain property, denominated as an action for breach of contract and fraud, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 29, 1980, as, upon granting his motion to dismiss the complaint, granted plaintiffs leave to "replead a more specific amended complaint” and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for an examination of defendant to aid in drafting an amended complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The examination shall proceed at the place designated in the order under review at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiffs, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. The plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient ground to support a valid cause of action against the defendant. Thus, the court did not err in ordering disclosure so that the plaintiffs might frame a proper amended complaint (see L-Tron Corp. v Davco Systems, 60 AD2d 25; Matter of Schenley Ind. v Allen, 25 AD2d 742). We have reviewed the defendant’s [674]*674other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to impress a constructive trust upon certain property, denominated as an action for breach of contract and fraud, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 29, 1980, as, upon granting his motion to dismiss the complaint, granted plaintiffs leave to "replead a more specific amended complaint” and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for an examination of defendant to aid in drafting an amended complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The examination shall proceed at the place designated in the order under review at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiffs, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. The plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient ground to support a valid cause of action against the defendant. Thus, the court did not err in ordering disclosure so that the plaintiffs might frame a proper amended complaint (see L-Tron Corp. v Davco Systems, 60 AD2d 25; Matter of Schenley Ind. v Allen, 25 AD2d 742). We have reviewed the defendant’s [674]*674other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 673, 434 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holly-v-holly-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack