Marinello v. Iozzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marinello v. Iozzo

24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 989 (Marinello v. Iozzo) 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

Marinello v. Iozzo, 24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the amended complaint purports to set forth causes of action for conspiracy to injure plaintiff and for fraud, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court. Westchester County, entered January 14, 1965, which inter alia granted the motions of defendants-respondents to dismiss the two causes of action for insufficiency (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Order modified by adding a fifth decretal paragraph to the effect that the granting of the motions is without prejudice to the commencement by plaintiff, if he be so advised, of a new action solely as against the defendant David Gilberg for recovery of the $100 fee received by said defendant. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. It appears that plaintiff might have a cause of action against defendant Gilberg based on the latter’s failure to appear in court in the criminal prosecution against the defendant Michael Frieary on the day that such prosecution was dismissed. Plaintiff had retained Gilberg as his attorney in that prosecution and had paid him $100. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the amended complaint purports to set forth causes of action for conspiracy to injure plaintiff and for fraud, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court. Westchester County, entered January 14, 1965, which inter alia granted the motions of defendants-respondents to dismiss the two causes of action for insufficiency (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Order modified by adding a fifth decretal paragraph to the effect that the granting of the motions is without prejudice to the commencement by plaintiff, if he be so advised, of a new action solely as against the defendant David Gilberg for recovery of the $100 fee received by said defendant. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. It appears that plaintiff might have a cause of action against defendant Gilberg based on the latter’s failure to appear in court in the criminal prosecution against the defendant Michael Frieary on the day that such prosecution was dismissed. Plaintiff had retained Gilberg as his attorney in that prosecution and had paid him $100. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinello-v-iozzo-nyappdiv-1965.