Case Name: Jerome H. Kent, Respondent, v. Charles H. Truman et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Truman, Wasserman & Co., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-10-06
Citations: 9 A.D.2d 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jerome H. Kent, Respondent, v. Charles H. Truman et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Truman, Wasserman & Co., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 649–649

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

Opinion:
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.