From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minez v. Merrill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1933
237 App. Div. 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

February 17, 1933.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York.

David J. Rosen of counsel [ James M. Snee, attorney], for the appellant.

Caruthers Ewing of counsel [ Chadbourne, Hunt, Jaeckel Brown, attorneys], for the respondents.

Present — FINCH, P.J., MERRELL, O'MALLEY, SHERMAN and TOWNLEY, JJ.


The allegations in the second cause of action are very general and the damages for breach of the alleged agreement do not clearly arise therefrom. Therefore, inasmuch as plaintiff indicated on the argument that he desired the privilege of serving an amended pleading, the order appealed from should be modified by permitting the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days from service of the order to be entered by this court, upon payment of all costs to date, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents.


Order entered on or about November 16, 1932, modified by permitting the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days from service of order upon payment of all costs to date, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents.


Summaries of

Minez v. Merrill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1933
237 App. Div. 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

Minez v. Merrill

Case Details

Full title:JULIUS MINEZ, Appellant, v. CHARLES E. MERRILL and Others, as General…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1933

Citations

237 App. Div. 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
264 N.Y.S. 266

Citing Cases

Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

An agreement to undertake investment advisory responsibilities must be pleaded and proven with the same…