Coolidge v. Kaskel
| Decision Date | 20 May 1965 |
| Citation | 16 N.Y.2d 559,260 N.Y.S.2d 835,208 N.E.2d 780 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 208 N.E.2d 780 Nicholas J. COOLIDGE et al., Suing on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Stockholders of 180 Tenants Corporation, Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Alfred KASKEL et al., Respondents. |
Edward L. Sadowsky, New York City, for appellants.
Charles Feit, Brooklyn, for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
BURKE, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum:
The misrepresentations alleged in the complaint and allegedly contained in the prospectus issued pursuant to section 352-e of the General Business Law, Consol.Laws, c. 20, upon which the cause of action depends were made to each purchaser of stock in identical terms. That distinguishes this case from Brenner v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 276 N.Y. 230, 11 N.E.2d 890, 114 A.L.R. 1010; Society Milion Athena v. National Bank of Greece, 281 N.Y. 282, 22 N.E.2d 374, and Onofrio v. Playboy Club of New York, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 740, 257 N.Y.S.2d 171, 205 N.E.2d 308. In those cases the representations may have been different in each case and no thread joined the members of the proposed class. The objections which were real in those cases are not even theoretically sound here. (See CPLR 1005, (a), (b), (c); 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., pars. 1005.04, 1005.11, 1005.12 (1964); Beeching v. Lloyd, 3 Drew. 227; Markt & Co. v. Knight S. S. Co., (1910) 2 K.B. 1021, 1031-1032, 1045-1046; The Annual Practice, 1963, vol. 1, p. 338; cf. Case v. Indian Motorcycle Co., 275 App.Div. 698, 88 N.Y.S.2d 241, affd. 300 N.Y. 513, 89 N.E.2d 246; Escott v. Barchris Constr. Corp., 2 Cir., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (1965).) Here proof of the cause of action of any one member of the class automatically proves the cause of action for all members of the class (Bouton v. Van Buren, 229 N.Y. 17, 127 N.E. 477; Elkind v. Chase Nat. Bank, 259 App.Div. 661, 20 N.Y.S.2d 213, affd. 284 N.Y. 726, 31 N.E.2d 198; CPLR 1005). Under this state of facts there can be a judgment for the putative class in which its members have a common interest. The fact that members of the class have additional individual causes of action arising from representations made apart from the prospectus which require pleading and proving scienter and reliance has no relevance her at all. Each member of this class relied on the identical prospectus which constituted as a matter of law the sole...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zachary v. R. H. Macy & Co.
...740, 257 N.Y.S.2d 171, 205 N.E.2d 308; Gaynor v. Rockefeller, 15 N.Y.2d 120, 256 N.Y.S.2d 584, 204 N.E.2d 627; Coolidge v. Kaskel, 16 N.Y.2d 559, 260 N.Y.S.2d 835, 208 N.E.2d 780) It would exhaust the talents of a convocation of talmudists and scholastics to attempt to reconcile what the Co......
-
Briskin v. Glickman, 66 Civ. 4301.
...been made separately, a representative claim will not lie. This rule has been consistently followed down to Coolidge v. Kaskel, 16 N.Y.2d 559, 208 N.E.2d 780, 260 N.Y.S.2d 835 (1965), which dealt with a representative action under section 352-e. Plaintiffs rely on two recent New York Court ......
-
Richards v. Kaskel
...come before the courts (8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, supra, 27 N.Y.2d 124, 313 N.Y.S.2d 733, 261 N.E.2d 647; Coolidge v. Kaskel, 16 N.Y.2d 559, 260 N.Y.S.2d 835, 208 N.E.2d 780; Northridge Coop. v. 32nd Ave. Construction Corp., 2 N.Y.2d 514, 523, 526--528, 530--531, 161 N.Y.S.2d 404, 408, ......
-
Millard v. Newmark & Co.
...each to the same extent, there is grave doubt that a class action for fraud could be premised thereon (Coolidge v. Kaskel, 16 N.Y.2d 559, 260 N.Y.S.2d 835, 208 N.E.2d 780). If there was fraud in the inducement, the wrong done was to each limited partner individually, and his cause of action......