Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

232 A.D.2d 270, 648 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1996·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 7,1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for an order precluding defendant from offering any evidence at trial to show that defendant owns or owned the assets of Soho Booking, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine was an inappropriate device to obtain relief in the nature of partial summary judgment. In any event, the documents submitted by plaintiff in support of the motion raise material issues of fact, such that resolution of the question on this appeal would be inappropriate. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 7,1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for an order precluding defendant from offering any evidence at trial to show that defendant owns or owned the assets of Soho Booking, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine was an inappropriate device to obtain relief in the nature of partial summary judgment. In any event, the documents submitted by plaintiff in support of the motion raise material issues of fact, such that resolution of the question on this appeal would be inappropriate. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman, 232 A.D.2d 270, 648 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 270 (Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related