Mauss v. Hartmaier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mauss v. Hartmaier

281 A.D. 1040, 121 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263

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

DecidedMay 18, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 1040 (Mauss v. Hartmaier) 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

Mauss v. Hartmaier, 281 A.D. 1040, 121 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for judgment directing the retransfer of a bar and grill, which the complaint alleges was transferred to defendant by reason of fraudulent representations to plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The complaint on its face does not disclose that there was violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in the transaction by which defendant obtained possession and operated the bar and grill. What was included in the “ business ” or conveyed by the bill of sale is not stated. Neither does it appear from the complaint that the defendant failed to make disclosure of whatever interest the plaintiff may have had in the “ business ” as a result of the transaction between the parties. However, the State Liquor Authority should be made a party to the action. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 124.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur; Adel, J., concurs in result.

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

In an action for judgment directing the retransfer of a bar and grill, which the complaint alleges was transferred to defendant by reason of fraudulent representations to plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The complaint on its face does not disclose that there was violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in the transaction by which defendant obtained possession and operated the bar and grill. What was included in the “ business ” or conveyed by the bill of sale is not stated. Neither does it appear from the complaint that the defendant failed to make disclosure of whatever interest the plaintiff may have had in the “ business ” as a result of the transaction between the parties. However, the State Liquor Authority should be made a party to the action. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 124.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur; Adel, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1040, 121 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauss-v-hartmaier-nyappdiv-1953.