Mandell v. Ciprut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandell v. Ciprut

150 A.D.2d 352, 543 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5500

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

DecidedMay 1, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 352 (Mandell v. Ciprut) 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

Mandell v. Ciprut, 150 A.D.2d 352, 543 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an oral joint venture [353]*353agreement, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated April 21, 1987, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action asserted against them, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of his cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint in order to cure defects alleged by the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Shaw in his memorandum decision at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In his brief on appeal, the plaintiff indicates that he is not challenging so much of the order as denied that branch of his cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint alleging a cause of action against the defendant Ciprut to recover damages for tortious interference with a business relationship. Moreover, in light of our determination sustaining the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, that branch of the plaintiff’s cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint repleading those causes of action to cure the defects alleged by the defendants is academic. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an oral joint venture [353]*353agreement, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated April 21, 1987, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action asserted against them, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of his cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint in order to cure defects alleged by the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Shaw in his memorandum decision at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In his brief on appeal, the plaintiff indicates that he is not challenging so much of the order as denied that branch of his cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint alleging a cause of action against the defendant Ciprut to recover damages for tortious interference with a business relationship. Moreover, in light of our determination sustaining the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, that branch of the plaintiff’s cross application which was for leave to serve an amended complaint repleading those causes of action to cure the defects alleged by the defendants is academic. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 352, 543 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandell-v-ciprut-nyappdiv-1989.