Baron v. Bobroy, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1960 |
| Parties | Frederick C. BARON, Beatrice K. Baron, Joseph P. Bivona, Agnes Bivona, Sol. J. Bund, Helen M. Bund, Dominick Buonaspena, Clara Buonaspena, L. Albert Edwards, Gloria Eleanor Edwards, Edward V. Emmerich, Marie Emmerich, Walter Guendel, Janet Guendel, Robert J. Hanley, Marie N. Hanley, Francis E. Lynch, Rosalie M. Lynch, John Olivieri, Madeline Oliveri, Peter C. Palmieri, Mafalda Palmieri, August Ponticello, Nanette Ponticello, Angelo Ranieri, Lucy Ranieri, Michael Ranieri, Frank Ruzicka, Irene F. Ruzicka, John A. Scalzo, Josephine Scalzo, George E. Schell, Madelyn Schell, Milton Shaiman, Janet Schaiman, Irving H. Weir, Jr., Letitia Weir, Fred Feustel and Mabel Feustel, Respondents, v. BOBROY, INC., Pano, Inc., Pril, Inc., and Joseph Strassner, Appellants, and Jack Greenman, Robert Grundt, Jerome Wolk, Irving R. Moser, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schechter & Schechter, Smithtown, for appellants, Martin J. Crowley, Smithtown, of counsel.
Bernard Campbell, Smithtown, for respondents.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, KLEINFELD and CHRIST, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by 39 plaintiffs who, at different times, purchased 19 newly constructed houses, to recover damages for breach of warranty, fraud and negligence, the corporate defendants and the individual defendant Strassner appeal from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, entered June 30, 1959, as, inter alia, denies their motion: (1) to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint is insufficient on its face; or (2) in the alternative, to strike out the names of all the parties plaintiff except the first one; or (3) in the alternative, to compel the plaintiffs to serve separate amended complaints stating their individual causes of action.
Order modified by striking out the second ordering paragraph and by substituting therefor a provision granting said defendants' motion to the further extent of severing the causes of action on behalf of each purchaser-plaintiff or set of purchasers-plaintiffs of each house and directing them to separately state and number their individual causes of action against the respective defendants. As so modified, the order insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.
Within thirty days after the entry of the order hereon the plaintiffs, if so advised, may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Kowalski
... ... Bancroft, Inc., 3 A.D.2d 437, 438--39, 161 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893--95). These legislative efforts are recorded at ... County Court can grant judgment up to its permissible limitation on each cause of action (Baron v. Bobroy, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 766, 205 N.Y.S.2d 173 (construing former section 67, subd. 3 of the ... ...
-
Faulk v. Milton
... ... 16, 1962, in an action for libel, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against Aware, Inc. and defendant Vincent W. Hartnett. The judgment was modified to the extent of reducing the ... 113; Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255 N.Y. 442, 451, 175 N.E. 123, 126; Baron v. Bobroy, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 766, 205 N.Y.S.2d 173; Johnson v. Sachs, 7 A.D.2d 939, 181 N.Y.S.2d 862; ... ...
-
Peoples Nat. Bank of Rockland County v. Yodowitz
... ... 2 ... The case of Baron v. Bobroy, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 766, 205 N.Y.S.2d 173 (2nd Dep't. 1960) contains language to the effect ... ...
-
Ed Moore Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Shapiro
... ... One Clark St. Hous. Corp., 108 A.D.2d 844, 485 N.Y.S.2d 346; La Lumia v. Schwartz, 23 A.D.2d 668, 257 N.Y.S.2d 348; Baron v. Bobroy, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 766, 205 N.Y.S.2d 173; 15 NY Jur 2d, Business Relationships § 1079, pp. 352-353). Moreover, the complaint is pleaded in ... ...