From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stoehrer v. Sattler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1962
18 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

December 10, 1962


In an action to recover damages for fraud, and for other relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 19, 1962, which denied their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on the ground that it appears on the face thereof that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants' time to serve their answers is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. We agree with the determination of the Special Term that the second cause of action adequately pleads a cause of action based upon defendants' fraud in inducing plaintiff to surrender possession of a rent-controlled apartment for one that was not subject to rent control. The cause of action is not insufficient merely because it may not allege the proper measure of damages ( A.S. Rampell, Inc., v. Hyster Co., 3 N.Y.2d 369, 383). Since the motion to dismiss the complaint is addressed to the entire complaint and since at least one cause of action is sufficient, the motion was properly denied ( Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N.Y. 79, 84; Altman v. Altman, 15 A.D.2d 546). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stoehrer v. Sattler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1962
18 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Stoehrer v. Sattler

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE STOEHRER, Respondent, v. ALOIS SATTLER et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 10, 1962

Citations

18 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
236 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

Grozalsky v. Schwartz

The complaint demands damages as alternative relief, if specific performance cannot be granted. If plaintiffs…

Griefer v. Newman

The time of the defendants to answer the complaint is extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon.…