From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaufman v. Farah

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 24, 1952
104 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1952)

Opinion

Argued January 9, 1952

Decided January 24, 1952

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, AURELIO, J.

Bernard Kaufman, in person, and Theodore Garfiel for Bernard Kaufman, appellant.

Edward Friedman, John J. Sullivan, Eugene J. Finnegan and Gabriel E. Torre for respondent.



We agree with the Appellate Division that the complaint is legally insufficient (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241; Kalmanash v. Smith, 291 N.Y. 142, 153; Naumer v. Gray, 28 App. Div. 529; Steuer v. Hart, 175 App. Div. 829; see, also, Lanyon's Detective Agency v. Cochrane, 240 N.Y. 274, 277), with the modification, however, that appellant be given ten days to plead over. The judgment should be modified by providing that plaintiff may have ten days in which to serve an amended complaint on payment of costs in all courts, and, as so modified, affirmed.

If the appellant fails to avail himself of such modification, then the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

LEWIS, CONWAY, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion. LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., and DESMOND, J., dissent and vote to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this pleading sufficiently complies with section 241 of the Civil Practice Act.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Kaufman v. Farah

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 24, 1952
104 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1952)
Case details for

Kaufman v. Farah

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD KAUFMAN, Appellant, v. ALBERT FARAH, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 24, 1952

Citations

104 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1952)
104 N.E.2d 368

Citing Cases

Kaufman v. Farah

The previous complaint served by plaintiff was held insufficient by this court and dismissed upon the ground…

Rosenblatt v. Wolf

In our opinion the deficiencies of the complaint bar present exploration of these contentions, whether they…