Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v. Groveton Papers Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v. Groveton Papers Co.

27 A.D.2d 713, 277 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4944

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 713 (Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v. Groveton Papers Co.) 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

Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v. Groveton Papers Co., 27 A.D.2d 713, 277 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

‘Order entered June 9, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross motion of plaintiff for leave to serve a second amended complaint. As so modified the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. Plaintiff sought leave to serve a proposed second amended complaint. Defendants-appellants opposed and cross-moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint seeks to add a cause of action charging appellants with misconduct in interfering with plaintiff’s contract, and acting wrongfully to deprive plaintiff of a valuable property right in said contract. A similar cause of action was dismissed previously by Special Term, which upheld the sufficiency of the first cause of action in such complaint. Ro appeal was taken from that determination. That first cause now comprises the amended complaint. There is no material difference between the proposed second cause of action and the second cause dismissed originally. The earlier disposition is res judicata with respect to the proposed second amended com[714]*714plaint (see Flynn v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 20 A D 2d 636). Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

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

‘Order entered June 9, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross motion of plaintiff for leave to serve a second amended complaint. As so modified the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. Plaintiff sought leave to serve a proposed second amended complaint. Defendants-appellants opposed and cross-moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint seeks to add a cause of action charging appellants with misconduct in interfering with plaintiff’s contract, and acting wrongfully to deprive plaintiff of a valuable property right in said contract. A similar cause of action was dismissed previously by Special Term, which upheld the sufficiency of the first cause of action in such complaint. Ro appeal was taken from that determination. That first cause now comprises the amended complaint. There is no material difference between the proposed second cause of action and the second cause dismissed originally. The earlier disposition is res judicata with respect to the proposed second amended com[714]*714plaint (see Flynn v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 20 A D 2d 636). Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 713, 277 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchant-suppliers-paper-co-v-groveton-papers-co-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack