From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harry Levine Corp. v. K. Gimbel Accessories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1973
41 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

February 26, 1973


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 8, 1971, insofar as it denied appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint as to it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint as to defendant K. Gimbel Accessories, Inc., granted, with leave to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint if so advised. (See CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Cushman Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 133.) Plaintiff's second cause of action is for damages based upon fraud. The complaint, in conclusory fashion, alleges a conspiracy between Gimbel and the other defendants to induce plaintiff to execute a lease on the false misrepresentation that the premises would be vacated 30 days prior to commencement of the lease. This complaint suffers generally from the infirmity which condemned the complaints in Daukas v. Shearson, Hammill Co. ( 23 A.D.2d 833) and in Kramer v. Loeb, Rhoades Co. ( 20 A.D.2d 634). The privilege of serving an amended pleading rests not only upon formal corrections in the deficient pleading, but also upon an evidentiary showing that the cause of action can be supported. ( Cushman Wakefield v. John David, Inc., supra.)

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Nunez, Lane and Capozzoli, JJ.; Kupferman, J., concurs in the following memorandum: While I concur in the result, it seems obvious that the second cause of action in the complaint by Levine Corp. v. K. Gimbel Accessories, (and others) is of a nature similar to the second cause of action in the complaint by K. Gimbel Accessories v. Levine Corp. (and others) in this now consolidated case. Although no motion has yet been made directed to the other second cause of action, we should not have piecemeal determinations.


Summaries of

Harry Levine Corp. v. K. Gimbel Accessories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1973
41 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Harry Levine Corp. v. K. Gimbel Accessories

Case Details

Full title:HARRY LEVINE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. K. GIMBEL ACCESSORIES, INC.…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 1973

Citations

41 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Citing Cases

TRAY WRAP, INC. v. PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS LTD.

Thus, a cause of action for fraud must be pled with specificity and a failure to do so mandates dismissal.…

Spertell v. Hendrix

Nor has defendant made any showing of merit with respect to such cause of action. (See Levine Corp. v Gimbel…