Robinowitz v. City of White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinowitz v. City of White Plains

245 A.D. 736

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

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 736 (Robinowitz v. City of White Plains) 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

Robinowitz v. City of White Plains, 245 A.D. 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for fraud, based on the execution of a release by the plaintiff upon the payment of a sum of money to her by the defendant. Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The alleged misrepresentations upon which the plaintiff says she relied are predicated upon the doing of acts beyond the scope of the authority of the officials who, plaintiff claims, made them. (McDonald v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 23, 27; Village of Fort Edward v. Fish, 156 id. 363, 371.) The acts contemplated to be performed as part of the alleged arrangement which, it is claimed, fraudulently induced the plaintiff to act were illegal, especially so much thereof as concerned the fixing of future assessments or taxes on a basis that would absorb the difference between plaintiff’s alleged claim and the cash settlement therefor, which illegality could not be cured by any claim of subsequent ratification. (Smith v. City of Newburgh, 77 N. Y. 130, 136; Keane v. City of New York, 88 App. Div. 542.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Action for fraud, based on the execution of a release by the plaintiff upon the payment of a sum of money to her by the defendant. Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The alleged misrepresentations upon which the plaintiff says she relied are predicated upon the doing of acts beyond the scope of the authority of the officials who, plaintiff claims, made them. (McDonald v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 23, 27; Village of Fort Edward v. Fish, 156 id. 363, 371.) The acts contemplated to be performed as part of the alleged arrangement which, it is claimed, fraudulently induced the plaintiff to act were illegal, especially so much thereof as concerned the fixing of future assessments or taxes on a basis that would absorb the difference between plaintiff’s alleged claim and the cash settlement therefor, which illegality could not be cured by any claim of subsequent ratification. (Smith v. City of Newburgh, 77 N. Y. 130, 136; Keane v. City of New York, 88 App. Div. 542.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinowitz-v-city-of-white-plains-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack