Legal Opinion
Grimm v. Bam
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 23, 1959PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCharles A. Loreto, J.
Upon a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency in law, the question presented is whether words alone set forth in a letter addressed to plaintiff husband *983will sustain a common-law cause of action in tort for mental anguish as well as one based in violation of section 551 of the Penal Law.
Plaintiff husband is a stockbroker, financial consultant and securities broker. The defendants are members of a law firm and their clients. On behalf of the latter the attorneys addressed a letter to plaintiff husband demanding the delivery of certain securities for their clients and stating that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Milks v. McIverNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Hamilton v. . Third Avenue Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Gillespie v. . Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Boyce v. . Greeley Square Hotel Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Aaron v. . WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wehringer v. Standard Security Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Lafferty v. RhudyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
- Bass v. Morgan, Lewis & BockiusDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Boschette v. BachDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1996