Legal Opinion
Cangold, Inc. v. Rickles
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1958PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Groat, J.
Motion by defendants to dismiss each of two causes of action for insufficiency. The factual allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true.
*815In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges that it is the owner and operator of a restaurant and night club located in Queens County, that the defendants Weber and Phil-Web Attractions, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the codefendants) were the duly authorized agents of the defendant Rickies (hereinafter called the defendant), with full power to act for him in respect to his employment as a theatrical performer, that on June 1, 1956, the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Mencher v. WeissNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- May Metropolitan Corp. v. May Oil Burner Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Friedman v. Roseth Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
- Friedman v. Roseth CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Marcraft Recreation Corp. v. Frances Devlin Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Cangold, Inc. v. RicklesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959