Dagan v. Rothstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dagan v. Rothstein

302 A.D.2d 554, 755 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 554 (Dagan v. Rothstein) 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

Dagan v. Rothstein, 302 A.D.2d 554, 755 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to remove the manager of certain limited partnerships, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 2, 2002, as denied their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the 11th cause of action.

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

After the plaintiffs made out their prima facie case for summary judgment on the 11th cause of action, the respondents raised a triable issue of fact and demonstrated their need for further discovery from the plaintiffs. Accordingly, denial of the plaintiffs’ motion was proper (see CPLR 3212 [b], [f]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Morris v Hochman, 296 AD2d 481 [2002]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to remove the manager of certain limited partnerships, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 2, 2002, as denied their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the 11th cause of action.

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

After the plaintiffs made out their prima facie case for summary judgment on the 11th cause of action, the respondents raised a triable issue of fact and demonstrated their need for further discovery from the plaintiffs. Accordingly, denial of the plaintiffs’ motion was proper (see CPLR 3212 [b], [f]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Morris v Hochman, 296 AD2d 481 [2002]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 554, 755 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dagan-v-rothstein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack