Ray v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ray v. Ray

269 A.D. 697, 53 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3357

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D. 697 (Ray v. Ray) 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

Ray v. Ray, 269 A.D. 697, 53 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint contains two separate causes of action. The first cause of action is for rescission of an agreement made between plaintiff and defendant Walter R. Ray. The second cause of action is a representative stockholder’s action, brought by plaintiff, on behalf of the three corporate defendants, against the individual defendants, as officers or directors, or both, of the three corporations, alleging waste in that they paid to themselves excessive salaries, sales and travel expenses and legal fees. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to divide into separate paragraphs the allegations contained in the first three paragraphs of the first cause -of action and separately to state and number each cause of action contained in the second cause of action. The motion was denied, and defendants appeal. Order modified on the law by striking out the words “ in all respects denied ” and inserting in place thereof a provision granting the motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action pleaded in the second cause of action. As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 90; see, also, Melniker v. American Title & Guaranty Company, 253 App. Div. 570.) Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to affirm without modification,

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

The complaint contains two separate causes of action. The first cause of action is for rescission of an agreement made between plaintiff and defendant Walter R. Ray. The second cause of action is a representative stockholder’s action, brought by plaintiff, on behalf of the three corporate defendants, against the individual defendants, as officers or directors, or both, of the three corporations, alleging waste in that they paid to themselves excessive salaries, sales and travel expenses and legal fees. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to divide into separate paragraphs the allegations contained in the first three paragraphs of the first cause -of action and separately to state and number each cause of action contained in the second cause of action. The motion was denied, and defendants appeal. Order modified on the law by striking out the words “ in all respects denied ” and inserting in place thereof a provision granting the motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action pleaded in the second cause of action. As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 90; see, also, Melniker v. American Title & Guaranty Company, 253 App. Div. 570.) Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to affirm without modification,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 697, 53 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-ray-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack