Lever v. Dominick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lever v. Dominick

249 A.D. 860, 292 N.Y.S. 722, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 860 (Lever v. Dominick) 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

Lever v. Dominick, 249 A.D. 860, 292 N.Y.S. 722, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order striking from the complaint certain allegations on the ground they are irrelevant, unnecessary and scandalous and tend to prejudice the fair trial of the action, and directing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Defendants’ time to answer is extended to and including ten days after the entry of the order to be entered hereon. The action is to recover the purchase price of certain securities, based upon plaintiff’s rescission of the contract. In view of the fiduciary relationship, in our opinion the allegations struck out are relevant. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order striking from the complaint certain allegations on the ground they are irrelevant, unnecessary and scandalous and tend to prejudice the fair trial of the action, and directing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Defendants’ time to answer is extended to and including ten days after the entry of the order to be entered hereon. The action is to recover the purchase price of certain securities, based upon plaintiff’s rescission of the contract. In view of the fiduciary relationship, in our opinion the allegations struck out are relevant. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 860, 292 N.Y.S. 722, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lever-v-dominick-nyappdiv-1937.