Raimondi v. Fedeli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raimondi v. Fedeli

30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3374

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 802 (Raimondi v. Fedeli) 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

Raimondi v. Fedeli, 30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered April 8, 1968, denying motion of defendants-appellants to dismiss the complaint and vacate the attachment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the complaint with leave to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827; Cyg-Knit Mills v. Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, 26 A .D 2d 800; Andlou Props. v. Grayck, 24 A D 2d 716), and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. The complaint fails to factually allege that the fraudulent conduct of defendants-appellants induced the sale of plaintiff’s merchandise to defendant Fedeli. The fact that the complaint is demurrable does not require the vacatur of the attachment when the affidavits establish that plaintiff may have a cause of action which will support the attachment. (Atlantic Raw Materials v. Almarex Prods., 154 N. Y. S. 2d 993, 996-997.) This disposition is without prejudice to a renewal of the motion to vacate the attachment if permission for leave to amend is not applied for within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered April 8, 1968, denying motion of defendants-appellants to dismiss the complaint and vacate the attachment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the complaint with leave to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827; Cyg-Knit Mills v. Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, 26 A .D 2d 800; Andlou Props. v. Grayck, 24 A D 2d 716), and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. The complaint fails to factually allege that the fraudulent conduct of defendants-appellants induced the sale of plaintiff’s merchandise to defendant Fedeli. The fact that the complaint is demurrable does not require the vacatur of the attachment when the affidavits establish that plaintiff may have a cause of action which will support the attachment. (Atlantic Raw Materials v. Almarex Prods., 154 N. Y. S. 2d 993, 996-997.) This disposition is without prejudice to a renewal of the motion to vacate the attachment if permission for leave to amend is not applied for within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raimondi-v-fedeli-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack