Kaufman v. Sweigard

Decision Date21 February 1967
Citation277 N.Y.S.2d 498,27 A.D.2d 717
PartiesHenri H. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. SWEIGARD and Ira Guilden, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

S. Pinkham, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. S. Carlson, New York City, for defendants-respondents.

Before STEVENS, J.P., and STEUER, CAPOZZOLI, McNALLY and WITMER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order entered on September 19th, 1966, granting defendant Guilden's motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action contained in the complaint herein for legal insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion denied.

'We are not unmindful of the fact that this complaint is not artfully pleaded * * *. However, if 'in any aspect upon the facts stated (the plaintiff is) entitled to recovery' (Abrams v. Allen, 297 N.Y. 52, 54, 74 N.E.2d 305, 173 A.L.R. 671); a motion to dismiss for insufficiency must be denied (citing case)' (Kaminsky v. Kahn, 13 A.D.2d 143, 146, 213 N.Y.S.2d 786, 789). Upon a motion made pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211(a)(7), the function of the Court is to 'look to the substance rather than to the form' (Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 64, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121, 126). It follows, therefore, that the third cause of action sufficiently states a claim for Guilden's intentional and deceitful inducement of Sweigard to breach his contract with plaintiff (Goodman v. Kirkeby, 282 App.Div. 86, 89, 121 N.Y.S.2d 158, 160, leave to appeal den. 306 N.Y. 981, 116 N.E.2d 247), and that the fourth cause of action sufficiently alleges an illegal conspiracy between the two defendants to deprive the plaintiff of his commissions (Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N.Y. 443, 173 N.E. 674, 84 A.L.R. 1.)

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Division of Triple T Service, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1969
    ...v. Birnbaum, 16 N.Y.2d 212, 216, 264 N.Y.S.2d 521, 523, 212 N.E.2d 37, 38). The Court looks to substance and not form (Kaufman v. Sweigard, 27 A.D.2d 717, 277 N.Y.S.2d 498) and it must determine whether plaintiff has sufficiently set forth a cause of action for improper termination of a sal......
  • Doe v. Iona Preparatory Sch.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2020
    ... ... Kaufman" v. Sweigard, 27 ... A.D.2d 717, 717 [1st Dept. 1967]) ...          II ... Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend ...       \xC2" ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT