Ungar v. Lesser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ungar v. Lesser

137 A.D.2d 419, 525 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 419 (Ungar v. Lesser) 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

Ungar v. Lesser, 137 A.D.2d 419, 525 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered March 27, 1987, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On argument, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the cause of action as pleaded is for breach of contract only, notwithstanding the complaint’s reference to fraud. Taking counsel at his word, we find, in the circumstances, that the complaint adequately gives notice of the transaction giving rise to the contract action. Any paucity of detail may be remedied through a bill of particulars and discovery. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered March 27, 1987, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On argument, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the cause of action as pleaded is for breach of contract only, notwithstanding the complaint’s reference to fraud. Taking counsel at his word, we find, in the circumstances, that the complaint adequately gives notice of the transaction giving rise to the contract action. Any paucity of detail may be remedied through a bill of particulars and discovery. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 419, 525 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ungar-v-lesser-nyappdiv-1988.