Legal Opinion

Clasen v. Doherty

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

Decided December 7, 1934PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

In alleging the second cause of action, plaintiff has failed to comply with rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The third cause of action is totally insufficient. The rule is well settled that a so-called threat, as outlined in his complaint, to breach a contract does not constitute duress.

The order appealed from should be modified by granting the motion as to the second and third causes of action, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint as to the first and second causes of action upon payment of costs to date, and as so modified affirmed, wdth twenty dollars costs and…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Vines v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  2. Hotel Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
  3. Manno v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Steward v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Gallagher Switchboard Corp. v. Heckler Electric Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962

7 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