Legal Opinion

Stamabelis v. Mickros

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtTownley, J.

Defendant Paxis moves under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for insufficiency. The complaint states that this defendant, with certain other of the named defendants, “ did connive, confederate and conspire together without the knowledge of the plaintiff, in causing the defendant Nick Mickros to be evicted from the restaurant located at No. 220 Columbus avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York City, and to have a lease for the said premises given to the defendant George Paxis.” No charge is made that this defendant acted unlawfully or wrongfully or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Place v. . MinsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Cohen v. Nathaniel Fisher & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  3. Russell & Sons v. Stampers & Gold Leaf Local Union No.22New York Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Simmonds v. SowersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API