Klein v. Federation Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Federation Bank & Trust Co.

32 A.D.2d 963, 302 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 963 (Klein v. Federation Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Klein v. Federation Bank & Trust Co., 32 A.D.2d 963, 302 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 11, 1968, as, upon defendant’s motion, dismissed the complaint as amended by the same order and (2) from a judgment of said court entered January 17, 1968 pursuant to said order. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. The second cause of action in the amended complaint was dismissed on the theory that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In our opinion, this cause of action should have been dismissed for legal insufficiency. As in the prior action instituted by plaintiff Ernest Klein alone (see Klein v. American Trust Co., 25 A D 2d 564), this cause of action.is insufficient as a matter of law. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 11, 1968, as, upon defendant’s motion, dismissed the complaint as amended by the same order and (2) from a judgment of said court entered January 17, 1968 pursuant to said order. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. The second cause of action in the amended complaint was dismissed on the theory that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In our opinion, this cause of action should have been dismissed for legal insufficiency. As in the prior action instituted by plaintiff Ernest Klein alone (see Klein v. American Trust Co., 25 A D 2d 564), this cause of action.is insufficient as a matter of law. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 963, 302 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-federation-bank-trust-co-nyappdiv-1969.