Case ID: ad2d_33/html/1009-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Makel Textiles, Inc., Respondent, v. Frank F. Barth et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
   Order entered June 17, 1969, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed and the action severed as to defendants Barth, Ribaudo and R C R Sportswear, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired with each other to cause New Styles Coat, Inc., to verify and serve an answer to a complaint in an action against New Styles by plaintiff herein knowing that the sum of $32,147.50 was then due from New Styles to plaintiff; that said answer was false and was interposed for the purpose of thwarting plaintiff in the collection of its just debt and to enable defendant R C R Sportswear, Inc., to collect the sum of $17,729.27 from New Styles Coat, Inc. The complaint does not plead a valid cause of action for tortious abuse of process nor for prima facie tort. (See Ametco, Ltd. v. Beltchev, 5 A D 2d 631, affd. 7 N Y 2d 783; Williams v. Williams, 23 N Y 2d 592; Ruza v. Ruza, 286 App. Div. 767, 769.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.