Case Name: DINTENFASS v. OFFEMAN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-05-02
Citations: 141 N.Y.S. 1116
Docket Number: 
Parties: DINTENFASS v. OFFEMAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 141
Pages: 1116–1116

Head Matter:
DINTENFASS v. OFFEMAN et al.
(Supreme. Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 2, 1913).
Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Mark M. Dintenfass, as a stockholder of the Associated Independent Film Manufacturers, against Emile Offeman, impleaded with David Horsley and others. From so much of an order as denied in part a motion by defendant Offeman to make the complaint more definite and certain, he appeals. Modified and affirmed. Herbert M. Simon, of New York City, for appellant. David Slade, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The order appealed from should be modified, and the complaint made more definite and certain in the following particulars, to wit: Paragraph 10: By showing the date of the contract under which the stock was issued to the individual defendants, the parties thereto, and whether the same was oral or in writing. Paragraph 12: By showing the same particulars as above with regard to the contract or contracts alleged in this paragraph. Paragraph 13: By showing what part of the $16,000 was received by the individual defendants and by the Motion Company, and what part was received for services by the individual defendants as members of the board of directors, if any, or by alleging that plaintiff has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to such details. Paragraph 15 and 17: By showing the. dates of the several demands for the commencement of this action upon whom such demands were made, anc whether the same were oral or in writing. As thus modified, order affirmed, without costs.