Marks v. Diesenhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marks v. Diesenhouse

146 A.D.2d 752, 537 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 906

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A.D.2d 752 (Marks v. Diesenhouse) 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

Marks v. Diesenhouse, 146 A.D.2d 752, 537 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust and to set aside certain conveyances and assignments on the ground of fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 10, 1987, which granted the motion of the defendants Victus Ltd., The Union [753]*753Savings Bank and Hampton Vistas Associates to dismiss the complaint as against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree that the plaintiffs have failed to state any cause of action against the defendants Victus Ltd., The Union Savings Bank and Hampton Vistas Associates. In light of the fact that the plaintiffs have never offered any facts in support of their claim that those defendants “entered into a conspiracy and scheme to defraud” them, the failure to grant the plaintiffs leave to replead with respect to those defendants was not an abuse of discretion. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust and to set aside certain conveyances and assignments on the ground of fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 10, 1987, which granted the motion of the defendants Victus Ltd., The Union [753]*753Savings Bank and Hampton Vistas Associates to dismiss the complaint as against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree that the plaintiffs have failed to state any cause of action against the defendants Victus Ltd., The Union Savings Bank and Hampton Vistas Associates. In light of the fact that the plaintiffs have never offered any facts in support of their claim that those defendants “entered into a conspiracy and scheme to defraud” them, the failure to grant the plaintiffs leave to replead with respect to those defendants was not an abuse of discretion. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 752, 537 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-diesenhouse-nyappdiv-1989.