Ramberg v. Cosmo Salads, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramberg v. Cosmo Salads, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 779, 270 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495

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

DecidedApril 18, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 779 (Ramberg v. Cosmo Salads, Inc.) 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

Ramberg v. Cosmo Salads, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 779, 270 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a stockholder’s derivative action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 3, 1966 which denied their motion: (1) to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to serve an amended complaint conforming to CPLR 3014 as directed by a prior order of said court wherein plaintiff was directed separately to state and number her alleged causes of action, i.e., an individual cause of action and a stockholder’s derivative cause of action or (2) in the alternative, to require plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (O’Hara v. Derschug, 232 App. Div. 31). Defendants’ time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a stockholder’s derivative action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 3, 1966 which denied their motion: (1) to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to serve an amended complaint conforming to CPLR 3014 as directed by a prior order of said court wherein plaintiff was directed separately to state and number her alleged causes of action, i.e., an individual cause of action and a stockholder’s derivative cause of action or (2) in the alternative, to require plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (O’Hara v. Derschug, 232 App. Div. 31). Defendants’ time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 779, 270 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramberg-v-cosmo-salads-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack