Legal Opinion
Eisemann v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 1949PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtBenvenga, J.
In this action for fraud and deceit, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency and on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
*665This is the second time the plaintiff has sought relief for the same grievance. A motion to dismiss the former complaint was denied at Special Term, the court holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action in fraud (see N. Y. L. J., March 27, 1947, p. 1192, col. 2). The Appellate Division, however, reversed on the ground that the complaint did not contain the essential elements of such a cause of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Reno v. . BullNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Ochs v. . WoodsNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Verplanck v. . Van BurenNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Ross v. PrestonNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Cooper v. WeissblattAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Von Bulow Ex Rel. Auersperg v. Von BulowDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987