Ragto, Inc. v. Schneiderman
| Decision Date | 02 April 1979 |
| Citation | 69 A.D.2d 815,414 N.Y.S.2d 746 |
| Parties | RAGTO, INC., Respondent, v. Joseph SCHNEIDERMAN et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Barlow, Katz & Barlow, New York City, for appellants.
Joseph Schneiderman, Joseph Lubin and Linden Country Club, Inc. and Anderman & Povman, Forest Hills, for appellants George Covner and Linden Beach Club (Robert A. Katz, New York City, and Morton Povman, Forest Hills, of counsel) (one brief).
Zuckerberg & Santangelo, Kew Gardens (Marvin Zuckerberg, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, RABIN and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, Inter alia, to recover money unlawfully withheld (a) defendants Joseph Lubin, Joseph Schneiderman and Linden Country Club, Inc. and (b) defendants George Covner and Linden Beach Club, separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1978, which denied their motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motions to dismiss granted. The motion, Inter alia, to strike respondent's brief, renewed upon the argument of the appeal, is denied.
The instant action stems from a prior shareholder's derivative suit between the same general parties. That action was dismissed, largely with prejudice, by a prior order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Insofar as the prior complaint sought to allege a shareholder's derivative suit, the action was dismissed because the documentary proof established that the instant plaintiff, Ragto, Inc., was not a shareholder of the defendant corporation, Linden Country Club, Inc. Insofar as the complaint made allegations based upon duress and coercion, those causes of action were dismissed with leave to replead on the ground that they were inextricably interwoven with the dismissed derivative suit and failed to clearly state any separate cause of action. No appeal has been perfected from the dismissal of the prior suit.
Pursuant to the grant of leave to replead, the plaintiff commenced the instant action. The defendants seek dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action because it does not comply with CPLR 3013 and CPLR 3016. In general, those sections require that pleadings be stated with sufficient particularity to give notice to the court and parties of the transactions and occurrences intended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appel v. Ford Motor Co.
...even the minimal pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) (see Gorman v. Gorman, 88 A.D.2d 677, 451 N.Y.S.2d 455; Ragto, Inc. v. Schneiderman, 69 A.D.2d 815, 414 N.Y.S.2d 746, affd. 49 N.Y.2d 975, 428 N.Y.S.2d 949, 406 N.E.2d On the other hand, Special Term correctly declined to dismiss the si......
-
Jericho Water Dist. v. S. Zara & Sons Contracting Co., Inc.
...interwoven" with plaintiff's claim for damages in its first through fifth causes of action (see, e.g., Ragto, Inc. v. Schneiderman, 69 A.D.2d 815, 414 N.Y.S.2d 746, affd. for reasons stated in mem at App.Div. 49 N.Y.2d 975, 428 N.Y.S.2d 949, 406 N.E.2d 804). Therefore, these demands for rel......
-
Ming v. Hoi
...unless, as here, the moving papers conclusively establish that no cause of action exists (CPLR 3211[a][7]); Ragto, Inc. v. Schneiderman, 69 A.D.2d 815, 414 N.Y.S.2d 746, aff'd, 49 N.Y.2d 975, 428 N.Y.S.2d 949, 406 N.E.2d 804. Here, the plaintiffs have failed to set forth a triable claim and......
-
Cusumano v. Iota Industries, Inc.
...which was to dismiss the first cause of action of the complaint as to him should have been granted (CPLR 3012; Ragto Inc. v. Schneiderman, 69 A.D.2d 815, 414 N.Y.S.2d 746, affd 49 N.Y.2d 975, 428 N.Y.S.2d 949, 406 N.E.2d 804; Dember Constr. Corp. v. Staten Is. Mall, 56 A.D.2d 768, 392 N.Y.S......