Bogni v. Hurlbut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bogni v. Hurlbut

50 A.D.2d 1067, 376 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1067 (Bogni v. Hurlbut) 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

Bogni v. Hurlbut, 50 A.D.2d 1067, 376 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, without prejudice, in accordance [1068]*1068with the following memorandum: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was served with their answer. Plaintiff complains that he has not had an opportunity to conduct examinations before trial to obtain evidence to establish that defendants bought a business opportunity in Florida instead of real estate (see Dodge v Richmond, 5 AD2d 593; Schindler v Florida Real Estate Comm., 144 So 2d 862 [Fla]). We think that plaintiff should have such opportunity. Our affirmance is without prejudice to defendants, however, to renew their motion after plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity to complete his examinations before trial. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court in action to recover for services performed.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, without prejudice, in accordance [1068]*1068with the following memorandum: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was served with their answer. Plaintiff complains that he has not had an opportunity to conduct examinations before trial to obtain evidence to establish that defendants bought a business opportunity in Florida instead of real estate (see Dodge v Richmond, 5 AD2d 593; Schindler v Florida Real Estate Comm., 144 So 2d 862 [Fla]). We think that plaintiff should have such opportunity. Our affirmance is without prejudice to defendants, however, to renew their motion after plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity to complete his examinations before trial. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court in action to recover for services performed.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 1067, 376 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogni-v-hurlbut-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack