Strain v. Strain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strain v. Strain

259 A.D.2d 482, 684 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2035

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 482 (Strain v. Strain) 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

Strain v. Strain, 259 A.D.2d 482, 684 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of shares of a closely-held company, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated February 11, 1998, as granted the motion of the defendants Moacyr R. Calhelha, David L. Rider, and Rider, Weiner, Frankel & Calhelha, P. C., to dismiss the fourth through the ninth causes of action insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents, payable by the appellant.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the fourth through ninth causes of action insofar as asserted against the respondents inasmuch as the allegations in support of those causes of action were either devoid of a factual basis, vague and conclusory, or failed to fit within any cognizable legal theory (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87; Washington Ave. Assocs. v [483]*483Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486; M.J. & K. Co. v Matthew Bender & Co., 220 AD2d 488, 490). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of shares of a closely-held company, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated February 11, 1998, as granted the motion of the defendants Moacyr R. Calhelha, David L. Rider, and Rider, Weiner, Frankel & Calhelha, P. C., to dismiss the fourth through the ninth causes of action insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents, payable by the appellant.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the fourth through ninth causes of action insofar as asserted against the respondents inasmuch as the allegations in support of those causes of action were either devoid of a factual basis, vague and conclusory, or failed to fit within any cognizable legal theory (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87; Washington Ave. Assocs. v [483]*483Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486; M.J. & K. Co. v Matthew Bender & Co., 220 AD2d 488, 490). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 482, 684 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strain-v-strain-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack