Richard Fulton, Inc. v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richard Fulton, Inc. v. Levine

59 A.D.2d 677, 398 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13610

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 677 (Richard Fulton, Inc. v. Levine) 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

Richard Fulton, Inc. v. Levine, 59 A.D.2d 677, 398 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 8, 1976, granting the motion of defendants Levine and Hoffman to dismiss the third and seventh causes of action in the amended complaint, for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of permitting plaintiff to once again replead, in this action which he commenced in December, 1972, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this [678]*678appeal to defendants-respondents. While we are mindful of the fact that "this complaint is not artfully pleaded and contains much that is surplus-age” (Kaminsky v Kahn, 13 AD2d 143, 146) with respect to the causes of action which were dismissed by Special Term, it does appear that plaintiff may, if given one last opportunity to do so, be able to allege one or more precise, sufficient and valid additional causes of action based upon the subject matter of the dismissed claims. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 8, 1976, granting the motion of defendants Levine and Hoffman to dismiss the third and seventh causes of action in the amended complaint, for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of permitting plaintiff to once again replead, in this action which he commenced in December, 1972, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this [678]*678appeal to defendants-respondents. While we are mindful of the fact that "this complaint is not artfully pleaded and contains much that is surplus-age” (Kaminsky v Kahn, 13 AD2d 143, 146) with respect to the causes of action which were dismissed by Special Term, it does appear that plaintiff may, if given one last opportunity to do so, be able to allege one or more precise, sufficient and valid additional causes of action based upon the subject matter of the dismissed claims. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 677, 398 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-fulton-inc-v-levine-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack