Richardson v. Coy
| Decision Date | 18 May 1967 |
| Citation | 280 N.Y.S.2d 623,28 A.D.2d 640 |
| Parties | Morris E. RICHARDSON and Eleanor E. Richardson, Appellants, v. George E. COY, Carol M. Coy, Clarence E. Hamilton and 1172 Long Pond Road, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Easton, Wagner & Bittker, Rochester, for appellants (William E. Easton, Rochester, of counsel).
Moser, Johnson & Reif, Rochester, for respondent 1172 Long Pond Rd. (James M. Hartman, Rochester, of counsel).
Harris, Beach, Wilcox, Dale & Linowitz, Rochester, for other respondents (Peter E. J. Nilsson, Rochester, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P.J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HENRY, and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
The complaint states a cause of action, at least in recission. There might also be concurrent jurisdiction in the court for recission and money damages. (Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N.Y. 210, 220, 96 N.E. 441; 20 N.Y.Jur., Equity, § 26.) We do not rule out the possibility of other forms of relief.
Inasmuch as the motion is addressed to the entire complaint it must be denied in all respects. (Lane v. Mercury Record Corp., 21 A.D.2d 602, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1011, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 889, 276 N.Y.S.2d 626, 223 N.E.2d 35; Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121.)
Motions to dismiss should not be granted unless it is very clear that there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the pleading for the relief requested or for other relief. (Foley v. D'Agostino, supra; Donnelly v. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation et al., 21 A.D.2d 740, 250 N.Y.S.2d 90; CPLR 3013 and 3017(a); 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, 3013.03.)
Order and judgments unanimously reversed with costs and motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorichetti v. City of New York
...that there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the pleadings for the relief requested or other relief. (Richardson v. Coy, 28 A.D.2d 640, 280 N.Y.S.2d 683). And when the moving party offers matter extrinsic to the pleadings, the criterion to be applied is whether the plaintif......
-
Mink Hollow Development Corp. v. State
...v. State, 50 A.D.2d 1035, 376 N.Y.S.2d 719) and where the instant application was addressed to the entire claim. (See Richardson v. Coy, 28 A.D.2d 640, 280 N.Y.S.2d 623.) CPLR 3211(a) does not by its language permit dismissal of part of a cause of action, an omission whose significance is u......
-
Sutton v. Duke
...there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the pleading for the relief requested or for other relief.' Richardson v. Coy, 28 A.D.2d 640, 280 N.Y.S.2d 623, 624. The difference in the degree of specificity required by the NCRCP, CPLR, and the Federal Rules cannot be formularized......
-
Thompson v. Lincoln Budget Corp.
...raise sufficient issues to warrant the instant proceeding. (See Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121; Richardson v. Coy, 28 A.D.2d 640, 280 N.Y.S.2d 623). Petitioners have moved for disclosure in the form of discovery and production of documents and records for inspection and......