Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt

135 A.D.3d 533, 22 N.Y.S.3d 843

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 2016

Docket16657 155985/14

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 533 (Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt, 135 A.D.3d 533, 22 N.Y.S.3d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant’s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant’s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 533, 22 N.Y.S.3d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-directors-of-windsor-owners-corp-v-platt-nyappdiv-2016.