Crames v. Wonderknit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crames v. Wonderknit Corp.

92 A.D.2d 857, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 857 (Crames v. Wonderknit Corp.) 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

Crames v. Wonderknit Corp., 92 A.D.2d 857, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action on a contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered July 12, 1982, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto after the word “denied” the following, “except that the motion is granted to the extent of striking the fourth cause of action from the complaint, and the claim for damages in the first cause of action is reduced to $135,000.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We have reduced the claim for damages in the first cause of action in accordance with the parties’ stipulation. We have dismissed the fourth cause of action since no separate cause lies for punitive damages. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action on a contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered July 12, 1982, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto after the word “denied” the following, “except that the motion is granted to the extent of striking the fourth cause of action from the complaint, and the claim for damages in the first cause of action is reduced to $135,000.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We have reduced the claim for damages in the first cause of action in accordance with the parties’ stipulation. We have dismissed the fourth cause of action since no separate cause lies for punitive damages. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 857, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crames-v-wonderknit-corp-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack