Flores v. Las Americas Communications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flores v. Las Americas Communications, Inc.

218 A.D.2d 595, 630 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8861

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 595 (Flores v. Las Americas Communications, Inc.) 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

Flores v. Las Americas Communications, Inc., 218 A.D.2d 595, 630 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 6, 1994, which awarded plaintiffs $492,623.29, including $42,968.50 for attorneys’ fees and dismissed the third-party complaint, and, order of the same court and Justice, entered December 21, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion to renew and to vacate the judgment entered May 6, 1994, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the award of attorneys’ fees and otherwise affirmed, for the reasons stated by Saxe, J., with costs.

Defendants correctly contend that since the language of the parties’ agreement did not clearly provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees, the court erred in awarding such fees to plaintiffs (Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487; cf., Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 74 NY2d 686, affg 139 AD2d 71). We further note that since issue had been joined and the parties clearly indicated that they were deliberately charting a summary judgment course, the IAS Court did not err in treating plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 6, 1994, which awarded plaintiffs $492,623.29, including $42,968.50 for attorneys’ fees and dismissed the third-party complaint, and, order of the same court and Justice, entered December 21, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion to renew and to vacate the judgment entered May 6, 1994, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the award of attorneys’ fees and otherwise affirmed, for the reasons stated by Saxe, J., with costs.

Defendants correctly contend that since the language of the parties’ agreement did not clearly provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees, the court erred in awarding such fees to plaintiffs (Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487; cf., Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 74 NY2d 686, affg 139 AD2d 71). We further note that since issue had been joined and the parties clearly indicated that they were deliberately charting a summary judgment course, the IAS Court did not err in treating plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 595, 630 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-las-americas-communications-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack