Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933

Minez v. Merrill

Minez v. Merrill
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 17, 1933
237 A.D. 760; 264 N.Y.S. 266; 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10719

Counsel

David J. Rosen of counsel [James M. Snee, attorney], for the appellant., Caruthers Ewing of counsel [Chadbourne, Hunt, Jaeckel & Brown, attorneys], for the respondents.

Minez v. Merrill

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.