Cammy v. Rad Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cammy v. Rad Oil Co.

257 A.D.2d 556, 682 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 556 (Cammy v. Rad Oil Co.) 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

Cammy v. Rad Oil Co., 257 A.D.2d 556, 682 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraudulent concealment in violation of General Business Law article 11-B, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated October 22, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action since issues of fact exist. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Plorio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraudulent concealment in violation of General Business Law article 11-B, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated October 22, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action since issues of fact exist. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Plorio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 556, 682 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cammy-v-rad-oil-co-nyappdiv-1999.