Sanders v. Schiffer
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Favourite Limited v. Benedetto Cico (N.Y. 2024)
- A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc. (N.Y. 1996)
- Bardere v. Zafir (N.Y. 1984)
- Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Janssen v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Elliman v. Elliman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Martell Realty v. Vanderveer-Oakdale Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Dunn v. Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Abelman v. Shoratlantic Development Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Zambito v. Ryan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Boothe v. Weiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Maney v. Maloney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Antel Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. v. Sirus Leasing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. New York City Transit Authority (N.Y. 1983)
- Blake v. Ford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Schindler v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1980)
- Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Sanders v. Schiffer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified. The granting of the motions to dismiss the complaint and to cancel the associated notice of pendency should be affirmed. Such affirmance, however, is without prejudice to the right of appellants, if they be so advised, to apply at Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint, notwithstanding that they failed to state a desire to plead again in their opposing papers and that they do not urge such disposition now. On such application, if any, a copy of the proposed amended complaint shall be submitted to the court, accompanied by a disclosure of the evidentiary facts which would support the claim or claims set forth in the proposed amended complaint and will justify the granting of such leave (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).
We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that the complaint as it now stands does not state a cause of action. Nonetheless, if there are evidentiary facts which would warrant recovery under the applicable principles of law, appellants should be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate their right to relief.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, . Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order modified, with costs to defendants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.