Caruso v. International House of Pancakes
228 A.D.2d 462, 643 N.Y.2d 1023, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595
Opinion
Since the plaintiff failed to address the merits of his case in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), the court erred as a matter of law by granting the motion conditionally (see, Kel Mgt. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685; Rosano v County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 704, 705; Sanders v Van Dome Mgt., 191 AD2d 630). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Caruso v. International House of Pancakes, 228 A.D.2d 462, 643 N.Y.2d 1023, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 462 (Caruso v. International House of Pancakes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stolowitz v. Mount Sinai Hospital
455 N.E.2d 1255 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells
477 N.E.2d 458 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Sanders v. Van Dome Management
191 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Rosano v. County of Nassau
208 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)