Roller v. Buchheit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roller v. Buchheit

259 A.D.2d 1012, 689 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 1012 (Roller v. Buchheit) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 1012, 689 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roller-v-buchheit-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack