Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 A.D.2d 640

Richardson v. Coy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1967-05-18

Relies on Heckscher v. . Edenborn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-05-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2004

1019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Memorandum: The complaint states a cause of action, at least in recission. There might also be concurrent jurisdiction in the court for recission and money damages. (Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N. Y. 210, 220; 20 N. Y. Jur., Equity, § 26.) We do not rule out the possibility of other forms of relief. Inasmuch as the motion is addressed to the entire complaint it must be denied in all respects. (Lane v. Mercury Record Corp., 21 A D 2d 602, affd. 18 N Y 2d 889; Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.) Motions to dismiss should not be granted unless it is very clear that there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the pleading for the relief requested or for other relief. (Foley v. D’Agostino, supra; Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 21 A D 2d 740; CPLR 3013, 3017, subd. [a]; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, par. 3013.03.) (Appeal from order and judgments of Monroe Special Term dismissing complaint in an action to rescind a contract.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecehio, JJ.

/28/ad2d/640 · .json · Public domain