Ellicott v. Pavlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellicott v. Pavlo

39 A.D.2d 546, 332 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977

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

DecidedApril 10, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 546 (Ellicott v. Pavlo) 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

Ellicott v. Pavlo, 39 A.D.2d 546, 332 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for damages for fraud and deceit and for replevin of certain promissory notes, defendant Stuhl appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1971, as denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs. The first two causes of action set forth in the complaint sound in fraud and deceit and are sufficient against defendant Stuhl. In addition, it is our opinion that resolution of the entire issue of damages and the cause of action for replevin against Stuhl should await determination at the trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for damages for fraud and deceit and for replevin of certain promissory notes, defendant Stuhl appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1971, as denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs. The first two causes of action set forth in the complaint sound in fraud and deceit and are sufficient against defendant Stuhl. In addition, it is our opinion that resolution of the entire issue of damages and the cause of action for replevin against Stuhl should await determination at the trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 546, 332 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellicott-v-pavlo-nyappdiv-1972.