Three Crown Ltd. Partnership v. Caxton Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when “defendants are charged with fraud, the complaint must be specific as to the nature of each defendant’s alleged participation in the fraud.”
• holding, without discussion, that service upon 20-year-old doorman was sufficient to satisfy requirements of Rule 4(d)(1)
• “[w]here there are multiple-defendants, a complaint must identify-which defendant is responsible for which act”
• “[A]llegations may be based on ‘information and belief when facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge.’” (quoting Wexner v. First Manhattan Co., 902 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1990))
• service on building doorman described as being approximately 20 years old was proper
• service on building doorman described as being approximately 20 years old was proper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).