Seidenfeld v. Kobi Polyethylene Bag Mfg. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidenfeld v. Kobi Polyethylene Bag Mfg. Co.

46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 758 (Seidenfeld v. Kobi Polyethylene Bag Mfg. Co.) 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

Seidenfeld v. Kobi Polyethylene Bag Mfg. Co., 46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 11, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted, without prejudice as hereinafter set forth, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion to amend his complaint_denied. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The complaint, said to be based on fraud, when put to the test of summary judgment, is not supported' by the requisite proofs. This would be so even if the complaint were to be regarded as one for breach of contract. It may be that plaintiff is in a position to supply the deficiencies in proof and, accordingly, this disposition is without prejudice to application at Special Term for leave to amend the complaint, accompanied by evidence by affidavit in support of the proposed amendment. (See Cushman é Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133.) Concur — McGivern, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 11, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted, without prejudice as hereinafter set forth, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion to amend his complaint_denied. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The complaint, said to be based on fraud, when put to the test of summary judgment, is not supported' by the requisite proofs. This would be so even if the complaint were to be regarded as one for breach of contract. It may be that plaintiff is in a position to supply the deficiencies in proof and, accordingly, this disposition is without prejudice to application at Special Term for leave to amend the complaint, accompanied by evidence by affidavit in support of the proposed amendment. (See Cushman é Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133.) Concur — McGivern, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidenfeld-v-kobi-polyethylene-bag-mfg-co-nyappdiv-1974.