Legal Opinion

Jahss v. Lichterman

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1950PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeldock, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint (a) under subdivision 1 of rule 102 of the Buies of Civil Practice, on the ground that the pleading is indefinite, uncertain and obscure; (b) under subdivision 5 of rule 106 that the complaint is insufficient in law, and (c) under subdivisions 6 and 8 of rule 107 on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and further, that the action is unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds.

The original complaint was previously dismissed as insufficient on the ground that the alleged breach of contract was not definitely stated.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wood v. . RabeNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Condon v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Goldsmith v. . GoldsmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  4. Colrick v. . SwinburneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  5. Niagara Falls Power Co. v. WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1944

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Yeshiva University v. EdelmanNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Jahss v. LichtermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950
  3. Jahss v. LichtermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API