Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp.

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

Decided November 14, 1983Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gibbons, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with so much of the opinions of my colleagues as hold that plaintiffs’ causes of action for reformation, rescission and return of indemnification moneys will withstand a motion to dismiss. I also agree that plaintiffs’ cross motions to disqualify defendants’ attorneys and to preliminarily enjoin defendant Magnetic Head Corporation (Magnetic Head) from indemnifying the individual defendants were properly denied. I submit, however, that plaintiffs’ three causes of action for specific performance, construction and breach of…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Sutton v. East River Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Rowe v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. 67 Wall Street Co. v. Franklin National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1975

17 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