Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Coy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 18, 1967PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum: The complaint states a cause of action, at least in recission. There might also be concurrent jurisdiction in the court for recission and money damages. (Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N. Y. 210, 220; 20 N. Y. Jur., Equity, § 26.) We do not rule out the possibility of other forms of relief. Inasmuch as the motion is addressed to the entire complaint it must be denied in all respects. (Lane v. Mercury Record Corp., 21 A D 2d 602, affd. 18 N Y 2d 889; Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.) Motions to dismiss should not be granted unless it is very clear that there can be no relief under…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Heckscher v. . EdenbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1911

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Schlottman Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  3. Charles O. Desch, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  4. Sorichetti v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Mink Hollow Development Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1976

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API