Chong Min Mun v. Soung Eun Hong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chong Min Mun v. Soung Eun Hong

44 A.D.3d 534, 843 N.Y.S.2d 505

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 534 (Chong Min Mun v. Soung Eun Hong) 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

Chong Min Mun v. Soung Eun Hong, 44 A.D.3d 534, 843 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 12, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent of dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract, and granting defendant summary judgment on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract action should not have been dismissed under CPLR 3211 (a) (see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 91 [1991]). As to the remaining causes of action, since it is not clear from the record that both parties had deliberately charted a course for summary judgment, that relief should not have been granted in the absence of adequate notice to the litigants (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320-321 [1987]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 12, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent of dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract, and granting defendant summary judgment on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract action should not have been dismissed under CPLR 3211 (a) (see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 91 [1991]). As to the remaining causes of action, since it is not clear from the record that both parties had deliberately charted a course for summary judgment, that relief should not have been granted in the absence of adequate notice to the litigants (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320-321 [1987]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 534, 843 N.Y.S.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chong-min-mun-v-soung-eun-hong-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack