Giglio v. Kessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giglio v. Kessler

54 A.D.2d 556, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13868

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 556 (Giglio v. Kessler) 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

Giglio v. Kessler, 54 A.D.2d 556, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for (a) negligent performance of an acquisition audit and (b) breach of contract, (1) plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 8, 1975, as granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought dismissal of the first cause of action asserted in the complaint and (2) defendants cross-appeal from the balance of the order, which denied the branch of their motion which sought dismissal of the second cause of action. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted the branch of the motion which sought dismissal of the first cause of action, and the said branch of the motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents. There are questions of fact present as to both causes of action which cannot be resolved upon a motion for summary judgment. Thus, the motion to dismiss should have been denied in its entirety. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for (a) negligent performance of an acquisition audit and (b) breach of contract, (1) plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 8, 1975, as granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought dismissal of the first cause of action asserted in the complaint and (2) defendants cross-appeal from the balance of the order, which denied the branch of their motion which sought dismissal of the second cause of action. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted the branch of the motion which sought dismissal of the first cause of action, and the said branch of the motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents. There are questions of fact present as to both causes of action which cannot be resolved upon a motion for summary judgment. Thus, the motion to dismiss should have been denied in its entirety. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 556, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giglio-v-kessler-nyappdiv-1976.