Zevalos v. Rubens

The dispute in this lawsuit centers on the issue whether furniture identified in two invoices (dated April 26, 1996) was purchased by plaintiff from a company called Design Quest Ltd. or whether defendant Rubens made false representations under the guise of establishing a sale in which the plaintif.....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The dispute in this lawsuit centers on the issue whether furniture identified in two invoices (dated April 26, 1996) was purchased by plaintiff from a company called Design Quest Ltd. or whether defendant Rubens made false representations under the guise of establishing a sale in which the plaintiff allegedly purchased furniture at the agreed price of $9,000.00. This issue was also identified in a decision rendered by Hon. Debra Samuels on November 8, 2000.

The long and protracted history to this litigation involved numerous actions and extensive motion practice lasting over five (5) years marked by animosity between plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant Separate actions were commenced by the parties in Bronx County and New York County. The actions instituted by defendant under Index #20082/96 and later Index #4478/1998 were dismissed. Two separate actions that survived were consolidated. The record indicates that the Bronx action assigned Index #3781/1997 was instituted by the plaintiff, Nellie Zevalos, prior to the action commenced by defendant in New York County that bore Index #35526 CVN 1999. The complaint in the Bronx action, brought by Zevalos, sets forth six (6) causes of action. The first cause of action and each succeeding cause of action, recite a lengthy dissertation of events leading to the delivery of several pieces furniture to plaintiffs residence. The allegations, for the most part, are factual statements which masculate the long standing rule that requires allegations to be constructed to state ultimate facts. Allegations should not be composed of evidentiary statements nor should the complaint contain verbiage that is best reserved for a Bill of Particulars and although the rule requires pleadings to state material facts and not evidence, the failure to adhere to this rule is no longer fatal (see, Foley v. Diagostino, 21 A.D.2d 63, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121).

Zevalos v. Rubens

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal