Kilgour v. Tenney Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kilgour v. Tenney Corp.

31 A.D.2d 517, 294 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 517 (Kilgour v. Tenney Corp.) 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

Kilgour v. Tenney Corp., 31 A.D.2d 517, 294 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 2, 1968, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this action for specific performance, unanimously reversed, without costs or disbursements, on the law, motion granted and complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiff to apply at Special Term for vacatur of the dismissal and permission to serve an amended complaint if he be so advised. The sparse information in the record concerning the underlying transaction makes it difficult to determine the precise nature of plaintiff’s cause of action. As the record now stands, most of the court would hold that at best an action for damages may perhaps be maintainable, while there is some view that a trial on the present complaint might possibly develop facts tending to support the relief demanded. In the circumstances it is concluded that plaintiff should be given an opportunity to obtain leave to amend his complaint by providing Special Term with “ some evidéntiary showing that the claim can be supported” (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133, 135). Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McGivern, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 2, 1968, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this action for specific performance, unanimously reversed, without costs or disbursements, on the law, motion granted and complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiff to apply at Special Term for vacatur of the dismissal and permission to serve an amended complaint if he be so advised. The sparse information in the record concerning the underlying transaction makes it difficult to determine the precise nature of plaintiff’s cause of action. As the record now stands, most of the court would hold that at best an action for damages may perhaps be maintainable, while there is some view that a trial on the present complaint might possibly develop facts tending to support the relief demanded. In the circumstances it is concluded that plaintiff should be given an opportunity to obtain leave to amend his complaint by providing Special Term with “ some evidéntiary showing that the claim can be supported” (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133, 135). Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McGivern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 517, 294 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilgour-v-tenney-corp-nyappdiv-1968.