Braitman v. Minicucci & Grenga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braitman v. Minicucci & Grenga

272 A.D.2d 875, 708 N.Y.S.2d 688

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

DecidedMay 10, 2000

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 875 (Braitman v. Minicucci & Grenga) 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

Braitman v. Minicucci & Grenga, 272 A.D.2d 875, 708 N.Y.S.2d 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ submissions in opposition to the motion raise triable issues of fact whether defendants are entitled to any part of the retainer fee paid by plaintiff Brown and East Ridge Partners to defendant Minicucci & Grenga. We therefore modify the order and judgment in appeal No. 1 by denying plaintiffs’ motion. In light of our determination, the appeal by defendants from the order in appeal No. 2 denying their motion seeking leave to renew plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is dismissed as moot (see, 55 Liberty St. Assocs. v Garrick-Aúg Assocs. Store Leasing, 255 AD2d 188). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ submissions in opposition to the motion raise triable issues of fact whether defendants are entitled to any part of the retainer fee paid by plaintiff Brown and East Ridge Partners to defendant Minicucci & Grenga. We therefore modify the order and judgment in appeal No. 1 by denying plaintiffs’ motion. In light of our determination, the appeal by defendants from the order in appeal No. 2 denying their motion seeking leave to renew plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is dismissed as moot (see, 55 Liberty St. Assocs. v Garrick-Aúg Assocs. Store Leasing, 255 AD2d 188). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 875, 708 N.Y.S.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braitman-v-minicucci-grenga-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack