General

Jerome H. Kent, Respondent, v. Charles H. Truman et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Truman, Wasserman & Co., Appellants

9 A.D.2d 649·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1959·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Jerome H. Kent, Respondent, v. Charles H. Truman et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Truman, Wasserman & Co., Appellants. [MAJORITY] Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency unanimously reversed on the law, and, in the exercise of discretion, with leave to serve an amended complaint, with costs to defendants-appellants. The complaint is insufficient. While a refined and attenuated analysis might arguably spell out a shadow of a cause of action, neither the defendants nor the trial court should be subject to the difficulties. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.