Home/New York Court of Appeals/Sanders v. Schiffer

Sanders v. Schiffer

349 N.E.2d 869, 39 N.Y.2d 727, 384 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2689
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 6, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 349 N.E.2d 869 (Sanders v. Schiffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanders v. Schiffer, 349 N.E.2d 869, 39 N.Y.2d 727, 384 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2689 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified. The granting of the motions to dismiss the complaint and to cancel the associated notice of pendency should be affirmed. Such affirmance, however, is without prejudice to the right of appellants, if they be so advised, to apply at Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint, notwithstanding that they failed to state a desire to plead again in their opposing papers and that they do not urge such disposition now. On such application, if any, a copy of the proposed amended complaint shall be submitted to the court, accompanied by a disclosure of the evidentiary facts which would support the claim or claims set forth in the proposed amended complaint and will justify the granting of such leave (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that the complaint as it now stands does not state a cause of action. Nonetheless, if there are evidentiary facts which would warrant recovery under the applicable principles of law, appellants should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate their right to relief.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, . Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order modified, with costs to defendants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Related

Favourite Limited v. Benedetto Cico
New York Court of Appeals, 2024
Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG
105 A.D.3d 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Janssen v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre
59 A.D.3d 15 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Martell Realty v. Vanderveer-Oakdale Associates
265 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Elliman v. Elliman
259 A.D.2d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc.
663 N.E.2d 890 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Dunn v. Dunn
162 A.D.2d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Abelman v. Shoratlantic Development Co.
153 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Zambito v. Ryan
125 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Boothe v. Weiss
107 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Bardere v. Zafir
472 N.E.2d 37 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Maney v. Maloney
101 A.D.2d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Antel Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. v. Sirus Leasing Co.
101 A.D.2d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Blake v. Ford
98 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. New York City Transit Authority
452 N.E.2d 316 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Schindler v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.
106 Misc. 2d 646 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1980)
Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York
63 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Sanders v. Schiffer
60 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 N.E.2d 869, 39 N.Y.2d 727, 384 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-schiffer-ny-1976.