Legal Opinion

42nd Street Fotoshop, Inc. v. Weimet Film Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1954PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.

This motion (pursuant to rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice) is made by all of the defendants to dismiss for insufficiency on its face the first cause of action pleaded in the supplemental complaint. The corporate defendants additionally move (in pursuance of the same rule) to dismiss the cause of action on the ground that in any event it fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action against them.

The complaint pleads three counts, the first of which (in behalf of Marcus, the individual plaintiff) is alone the subject of this motion to dismiss. The complaint therein…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sasmor v. V. Vivaudou, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Bentrovato v. CrinnionNew York Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Malco Trading Corp. v. Mendelson-Silverman, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  4. Malco Trading Corp. v. Mendelson-Silverman, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
  5. Clarkson v. Walpole Rubber Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Maki v. Estate of ZiehmAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. Schisgall v. Fairchild Publications, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API