Whitestone Realty Corp. v. Malba Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitestone Realty Corp. v. Malba Properties, Inc.

4 A.D.2d 688, 163 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221

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

DecidedJune 10, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 688 (Whitestone Realty Corp. v. Malba Properties, Inc.) 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

Whitestone Realty Corp. v. Malba Properties, Inc., 4 A.D.2d 688, 163 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for respondent’s alleged misrepresentation of the rentals payable by tenants in certain realty purchased by appellant, the appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to serve an amended complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The amended complaint is to be served within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, appellant’s attempt at amendment, designed merely to change the alleged valuations of the property upon which its damages were calculated, worked no prejudice upon respondent. The merits and legal sufficiency of the proposed amended complaint should be left to the subsequent course of this action (Coron v. Lindes, 259' App. Div. 924; Cohen v. Dana, 273 App. Div. 1017 f B endow Holding Corp. v. Bodmer, 245 App. Div. 723). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for respondent’s alleged misrepresentation of the rentals payable by tenants in certain realty purchased by appellant, the appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to serve an amended complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The amended complaint is to be served within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, appellant’s attempt at amendment, designed merely to change the alleged valuations of the property upon which its damages were calculated, worked no prejudice upon respondent. The merits and legal sufficiency of the proposed amended complaint should be left to the subsequent course of this action (Coron v. Lindes, 259' App. Div. 924; Cohen v. Dana, 273 App. Div. 1017 f B endow Holding Corp. v. Bodmer, 245 App. Div. 723). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 688, 163 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitestone-realty-corp-v-malba-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack