Seif v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seif v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co.

40 A.D.2d 655, 336 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 655 (Seif v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & 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

Seif v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co., 40 A.D.2d 655, 336 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 30, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted, and plaintiff-respondent’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The original complaint sought a finder’s [656]*656fee in connection with the obtaining of a loan. The complaint was based on an alleged oral agreement and therefore dismissible (§ 5-701, subd. 10, General Obligations Law). The proposed amended complaint recited the identical transaction, merely changing the label in attempted avoidance of the Statute of Frauds by terming the transaction a joint venture. Special Term permitted the amendment, leaving an application to dismiss for consideration in a possible future motion. The proposed amended complaint did not even come up to minimal standards for consideration as such; it neither supplied the -deficiencies in the original complaint nor satisfied the requirement that it be accompanied by proof showing good ground to support its allegations. (See Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Kupferman and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 30, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted, and plaintiff-respondent’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The original complaint sought a finder’s [656]*656fee in connection with the obtaining of a loan. The complaint was based on an alleged oral agreement and therefore dismissible (§ 5-701, subd. 10, General Obligations Law). The proposed amended complaint recited the identical transaction, merely changing the label in attempted avoidance of the Statute of Frauds by terming the transaction a joint venture. Special Term permitted the amendment, leaving an application to dismiss for consideration in a possible future motion. The proposed amended complaint did not even come up to minimal standards for consideration as such; it neither supplied the -deficiencies in the original complaint nor satisfied the requirement that it be accompanied by proof showing good ground to support its allegations. (See Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Kupferman and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 655, 336 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seif-v-cantor-fitzgerald-co-nyappdiv-1972.