Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc.

55 A.D.2d 520, 389 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15157

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 520 (Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v. Faberge, 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

Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc., 55 A.D.2d 520, 389 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 3, 1976, granting defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint herein, unanimously reversed, on the law, motions denied and amended complaint reinstated. Appellant shall recover of respondents one bill of $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We cannot agree with Special Term’s conclusion that the amended pleading was factually deficient. The amended complaint does comply with the "special provisions in subdivision (b) of 3016 [which] constitute no more than a directive that the 'transactions and occurrences’ constituting the 'wrong’ shall be pleaded in sufficient 'detail’ to give adequate notice thereof’. (Foley v D’Agostino, 21 AD2d 60, 64.) The fraud, as alleged, which plaintiff claims led to its being deprived of the fees agreed to by defendant Hemingway and customarily paid by those engaging her services, provides all defendants with adequate notice of the purportedly wrongful transactions and occurrences complained of. The specific fraud attributable to certain of the defendants is chargeable to all by virtue of the conspiracy alleged. Defendants’ claims based upon the alleged illegality of the underlying agreement and public policy considerations cannot properly be passed upon on the present inadequate state of the record. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, 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 3, 1976, granting defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint herein, unanimously reversed, on the law, motions denied and amended complaint reinstated. Appellant shall recover of respondents one bill of $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We cannot agree with Special Term’s conclusion that the amended pleading was factually deficient. The amended complaint does comply with the "special provisions in subdivision (b) of 3016 [which] constitute no more than a directive that the 'transactions and occurrences’ constituting the 'wrong’ shall be pleaded in sufficient 'detail’ to give adequate notice thereof’. (Foley v D’Agostino, 21 AD2d 60, 64.) The fraud, as alleged, which plaintiff claims led to its being deprived of the fees agreed to by defendant Hemingway and customarily paid by those engaging her services, provides all defendants with adequate notice of the purportedly wrongful transactions and occurrences complained of. The specific fraud attributable to certain of the defendants is chargeable to all by virtue of the conspiracy alleged. Defendants’ claims based upon the alleged illegality of the underlying agreement and public policy considerations cannot properly be passed upon on the present inadequate state of the record. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 520, 389 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilhelmina-models-inc-v-faberge-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack