EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman

138 A.D.3d 607, 28 N.Y.S.3d 864

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

DecidedApril 26, 2016

Docket923 650841/14

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 607 (EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman) 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

EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman, 138 A.D.3d 607, 28 N.Y.S.3d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded plaintiffs costs and attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in awarding plaintiffs fees (CPLR 2001) and costs (CPLR 8202) incurred in responding to and moving to strike defendants’ multiple, defective motions to dismiss the complaint. Contrary to defendants’ contention, they were provided with a sufficient opportunity to be heard on the issue of fees and costs, imposed as a condition for being allowed to refile their motion to dismiss. Whether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded plaintiffs costs and attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in awarding plaintiffs fees (CPLR 2001) and costs (CPLR 8202) incurred in responding to and moving to strike defendants’ multiple, defective motions to dismiss the complaint. Contrary to defendants’ contention, they were provided with a sufficient opportunity to be heard on the issue of fees and costs, imposed as a condition for being allowed to refile their motion to dismiss. Whether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 607, 28 N.Y.S.3d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evunp-holdings-llc-v-frydman-nyappdiv-2016.