Makel Textiles, Inc. v. Barth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Makel Textiles, Inc. v. Barth

33 A.D.2d 1009, 307 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1009 (Makel Textiles, Inc. v. Barth) 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

Makel Textiles, Inc. v. Barth, 33 A.D.2d 1009, 307 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 17, 1969, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed and the action severed as to defendants Barth, Ribaudo and R C R Sportswear, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired with each other to cause New Styles Coat, Inc., to verify and serve an answer to a complaint in an action against New Styles by plaintiff herein knowing that the sum of $32,147.50 was then due from New Styles to plaintiff; that said answer was false and was interposed for the purpose of thwarting plaintiff in the collection of its just debt and to enable defendant R C R Sportswear, Inc., to collect the sum of $17,729.27 from New Styles Coat, Inc. The complaint does not plead a valid cause of action for tortious abuse of process nor for prima facie tort. (See Ametco, Ltd. v. Beltchev, 5 A D 2d 631, affd. 7 N Y 2d 783; Williams v. Williams, 23 N Y 2d 592; Ruza v. Ruza, 286 App. Div. 767, 769.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered June 17, 1969, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed and the action severed as to defendants Barth, Ribaudo and R C R Sportswear, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired with each other to cause New Styles Coat, Inc., to verify and serve an answer to a complaint in an action against New Styles by plaintiff herein knowing that the sum of $32,147.50 was then due from New Styles to plaintiff; that said answer was false and was interposed for the purpose of thwarting plaintiff in the collection of its just debt and to enable defendant R C R Sportswear, Inc., to collect the sum of $17,729.27 from New Styles Coat, Inc. The complaint does not plead a valid cause of action for tortious abuse of process nor for prima facie tort. (See Ametco, Ltd. v. Beltchev, 5 A D 2d 631, affd. 7 N Y 2d 783; Williams v. Williams, 23 N Y 2d 592; Ruza v. Ruza, 286 App. Div. 767, 769.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1009, 307 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makel-textiles-inc-v-barth-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack