From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fried v. Sugar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 1962
17 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

October 9, 1962


In an action to rescind a stockholders' agreement, to direct defendant Sugar to return to each of the plaintiffs the moneys invested by them in the corporate defendant, and for other relief, both of said defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1962, which denied their motion, made pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice and section 476 of the Civil Practice Act, for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint on the ground that it fails to set forth a cause of action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed, with $10 costs, with leave to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. The complaint fails to state facts charging an actionable wrong. Mere conclusory statements of law, which are unsupported by allegations of fact, may not be utilized to supply material facts by inference ( Didier v. Macfadden Pubs., 299 N.Y. 49, 53; 3 Carmody, New York Practice [2d ed.], p. 1754; Kranz v. Lewis, 115 App. Div. 106; Hellerman v. Weinbrot, 276 App. Div. 763; cf. Adams v. Gillig, 199 N.Y. 314). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fried v. Sugar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 1962
17 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Fried v. Sugar

Case Details

Full title:LAZSLO FRIED et al., Respondents, v. LAZSLO L. SUGAR et al., Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 9, 1962

Citations

17 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Citing Cases

Marco v. County of Nassau

The complaint alleges that the defendant Smith was a Judge of the District Court of the County of Nassau;…