Cantor v. Levine

115 A.D.2d 453, 495 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54833
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 2, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 453 (Cantor v. Levine) 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
Cantor v. Levine, 115 A.D.2d 453, 495 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In an action for an injunction and to recover damages based, inter alia, on defendant’s misappropriation of plaintiff’s patient lists and solicitation therefrom for his own use and benefit, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated February 7, 1984, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss, as time barred, defendant’s counterclaim to recover damages for libel, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated May 10, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to the previous determination.

Appeal from the order dated February 7, 1984 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That portion of the order appealed from was superseded by the order dated May 10, 1984, made upon reargument.

[454]*454Order dated May 10, 1984 affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

When knowledge of facts is necessary for a party to properly oppose a motion to dismiss, and those facts are within the sole knowledge or possession of the movant, discovery is sanctioned if it has been demonstrated that such facts may exist (CPLR 3211 [d]; Cosmos Mason Supplies v Lido Beach Assoc., 95 AD2d 818). In this case, defendant contended that he did not know the date or dates on which each of the publications of the defamatory letter in question or its contents was mailed and/or made. This information was solely within the plaintiffs knowledge. Therefore, Special Term properly gave defendant the benefit of the doubt by denying the motion to dismiss and affording defendant the opportunity to obtain the dates of publication through disclosure. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Visiko v. Fleming
2021 NY Slip Op 06484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
BL DOE 7 v. Fleming
2021 NY Slip Op 06483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
BL DOE 4 v. Fleming
2021 NY Slip Op 06481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
BL DOE 3 v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart
2021 NY Slip Op 06480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v. Bezvoleva
2018 NY Slip Op 3389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Dacosta v. Trade-Winds EnvironMental Restoration, Inc.
61 A.D.3d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Scotto Princeton LLC v. Felsen Associates, Inc.
11 Misc. 3d 378 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Bordan v. North Shore University Hospital
275 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
ADT Operations, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank
173 Misc. 2d 959 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Nice v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
193 A.D.2d 1088 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.2d 453, 495 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantor-v-levine-nyappdiv-1985.