Sirs:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiff hereby
appeals to the Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court in and for the Second De-
partment, from a judgment entered in the Office
of the Clerk of the County of Richmond on the
1st day of March, 1932, in favor of the defendant
and against the plaintiff, dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint and for judgment in favor of the de-
fendant and against the plaintiff in the sum of
$65 as costs, and the plaintiff hereby appeals from
each and every part of the said judgment.
Dated, New York, March 10th, 1932.

Yours, &c.,
MICHAEL M. HELFGOTT,
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Office & P. O. Address,
25 West 43rd Street,
Borough of Manhattan,

City of New York.

6

Notice of Appeal.

7

To:
BARNETT COHEN, Esq.,
Attorney for Defendant-Respondent,
150 William Street,

New York, N. Y.
CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF RICHMOND,

St. George, S. I.

9

To the above-named Defendant:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the plaintiff's attorney within twenty (20) days, after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, and in case of your failure to

appear, or answer, judgment will be taken against
you by default, for the relief demanded in the
complaint.

Dated, Jamaica, N. Y., March 21st, 1931.

Plaintiff, complaining of the defendant, by her attorneys, Hyman & Segall, for her complaint, alleges:

FIRST: That heretofore and on or about the 12 twenty-eighth day of July, 1929, Abraham M.

Cohen died; that at the time of his death he was
twenty-six years of age; that he left him surviv-
ing the plaintiff, his wife, and

Cohen,
his mother; that on or about the tenth day of
February, 1931, by a decree of the Surrogate of
the County of Kings, letters of administration
were duly issued to the plaintiff upon the goods,
chattels and credits of said Abraham M. Cohen,

deceased; that she duly qualified as such administratrix and is such administratrix.

SECOND: Upon information and belief that at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of New York.

14

THIRD: Upon information and belief that at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was the owner of certain real property situate at Tottenville, Staten Island, in the Borough of Richmond, City and State of New York, which property was shown and designated on a certain plan of lots called “Richmond Shores” (Combined Sections 1 and 2), surveyed by William O. Hansen, City Surveyor, September, 1923, and filed in the Clerk's office of Richmond County on September 26th, 1925, and on October 21st, 1925, as Maps numbered 1520 and 1531 respectively, excepting so much of the above-described property as might have been sold by the said defendant subsequent to the acquisition by it of title thereto.

Fourth: Upon information and belief that at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was engaged in the development, exploitation, 15 improvement and subdividing of the above-described property, and engaged in the sale of the lots into which the said property had been subdivided.

FIFTH: That in connection with and in furtherance of the development, exploitation and sale of the above-described property, the defendant

printed, published and issued and caused to be printed, published and issued literature and circulars describing and referring to the said property, and erected signs thereon describing the said property and offering the same for sale, and engaged canvassers and salesmen to sell said property and offer the same for sale.

17

Sixth: That by such literature, advertising, canvassers, salesmen and signs, it was represented, assured, stated and set forth by the defendant that the defendant had created a suburban sub-division and development; that it was improving such development; that lots were offered for sale in such development; that such development was an ideal, safe place in which to live and for the erection of permanent homes and particularly that said development was an ideal summer home site and development and summer bathing beach.

SEVENTH: That by said literature, advertising, canvassing, salesmen and signs, it was represented, assured, stated and set forth that in connection with the development, improvement and management of the above-described property the defendant had set apart for use as a bathing beach

a certain portion of the property owned by the 18 defendant and more particularly shown and desig

nated on the aforementioned maps as “Community Beach,” which consisted of a strip of land along Surf Avenue facing on Raritan Bay, as shown on the aforementioned map.

EIGHTH: That in connection with the development and improvement of the aforementioned property and the sale of the lots shown and desig