Ruegg v. Fairfield Securities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruegg v. Fairfield Securities Corp.

281 A.D. 1023, 121 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171

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

DecidedMay 19, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 1023 (Ruegg v. Fairfield Securities Corp.) 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

Ruegg v. Fairfield Securities Corp., 281 A.D. 1023, 121 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

While the complaint may not be artistic in alleging that defendant promised to pay in consideration of plaintiff’s intestate’s forbearance and that there was such forbearance in reliance on the promise, we read the complaint as sufficiently alleging such facts and, as so construed, the complaint is sufficient. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss under rule 106 denied, with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after service of a copy of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Breitel, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 683.]

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

While the complaint may not be artistic in alleging that defendant promised to pay in consideration of plaintiff’s intestate’s forbearance and that there was such forbearance in reliance on the promise, we read the complaint as sufficiently alleging such facts and, as so construed, the complaint is sufficient. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss under rule 106 denied, with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after service of a copy of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Breitel, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 683.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1023, 121 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruegg-v-fairfield-securities-corp-nyappdiv-1953.