Vendall, Inc. v. Statler Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vendall, Inc. v. Statler Manufacturing Corp.

7 A.D.2d 936, 183 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 936 (Vendall, Inc. v. Statler Manufacturing Corp.) 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

Vendall, Inc. v. Statler Manufacturing Corp., 7 A.D.2d 936, 183 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with the performance of a contract, the appeal is from an order which granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, without leave to plead over. Order modified by striking therefrom the provision which denied appellant the right to replead [937]*937and by substituting therefor a provision granting appellant leave to serve a second amended complaint, if it be so advised. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The second amended complaint is to be served within 10 days after entry of the order hereon upon payment of the costs and disbursements of this appeal. In our opinion, the learned Special Term properly held that paragraphs “Eleventh” and “Nineteenth” of ithe amended complaint failed to supply the deficiencies pointed out when this court reviewed the original complaint (Vendall v. Statler Mfg. Corp., 5 A D 2d 882). Since appellant states that the present pleading was drawn in good faith in anticipated compliance with our previous decision, we are granting to appellant a further opportunity to replead upon payment, however, of the costs and disbursements above mentioned. Present -—Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with the performance of a contract, the appeal is from an order which granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, without leave to plead over. Order modified by striking therefrom the provision which denied appellant the right to replead [937]*937and by substituting therefor a provision granting appellant leave to serve a second amended complaint, if it be so advised. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The second amended complaint is to be served within 10 days after entry of the order hereon upon payment of the costs and disbursements of this appeal. In our opinion, the learned Special Term properly held that paragraphs “Eleventh” and “Nineteenth” of ithe amended complaint failed to supply the deficiencies pointed out when this court reviewed the original complaint (Vendall v. Statler Mfg. Corp., 5 A D 2d 882). Since appellant states that the present pleading was drawn in good faith in anticipated compliance with our previous decision, we are granting to appellant a further opportunity to replead upon payment, however, of the costs and disbursements above mentioned. Present -—Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 936, 183 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vendall-inc-v-statler-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1959.