Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Roller v. Buchheit

Roller v. Buchheit

259 A.D.2d 1012, 689 N.Y.S.2d 883
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1999·No. Appeal No. 2·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Grossman v Pharmhouse Corp., 234 AD2d 918, 919; Unadilla Silo Co. v Ernst & Young, 234 AD2d 754). Each of the causes of action in the amended complaint states a cognizable claim for declaratory or monetary relief based on theories of unconscionability or breach of contract (see, Grossman v Pharmhouse Corp., supra, at 919; Master Lease Corp. v Manhattan Limousine, 177 AD2d 85, 88-89, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 893). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present— Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Roller v. Buchheit, 259 A.D.2d 1012, 689 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

259 A.D.2d 1012 (Roller v. Buchheit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leon v. Martinez
638 N.E.2d 511 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Master Lease Corp. v. Manhattan Limousine, Ltd.
177 A.D.2d 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Unadilla Silo Co. v. Ernst & Young
234 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Grossman v. Pharmhouse Corp.
234 A.D.2d 918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)