Joseph v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Friedman

57 A.D.2d 799, 394 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975

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

DecidedMay 19, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 799 (Joseph 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

Joseph v. Friedman, 57 A.D.2d 799, 394 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without disbursements and without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint, and thereafter, renewal of defendant’s application for security and any applications addressed to such new complaint that defendants may be advised to make. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was premature was properly granted for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Fein at Special Term. However, thereafter, a pending criminal action was concluded and four of the individual defendants were found guilty and AMREP was fined $45,000. Accordingly, matters have occurred which might give plaintiff a cause of action which is now ripe. Concur— Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without disbursements and without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint, and thereafter, renewal of defendant’s application for security and any applications addressed to such new complaint that defendants may be advised to make. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was premature was properly granted for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Fein at Special Term. However, thereafter, a pending criminal action was concluded and four of the individual defendants were found guilty and AMREP was fined $45,000. Accordingly, matters have occurred which might give plaintiff a cause of action which is now ripe. Concur— Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 799, 394 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack