Good Life Productions, L. L. C. v. Down Town Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Good Life Productions, L. L. C. v. Down Town Ass'n

267 A.D.2d 153, 699 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 153 (Good Life Productions, L. L. C. v. Down Town Ass'n) 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

Good Life Productions, L. L. C. v. Down Town Ass'n, 267 A.D.2d 153, 699 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 9, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second, third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sufficient has been alleged as to promises collateral to the contract to support the fraud cause of action, which is duplicative of plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action (see, Grauhard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v Moskovitz, 86 NY2d 112, 122; cf., Big Apple Car v City of New York, 234 AD2d 136). We also agree with the motion court that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state claims premised on estoppel theories (see, Rogers v Town of Islip, 230 AD2d 727). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 9, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second, third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sufficient has been alleged as to promises collateral to the contract to support the fraud cause of action, which is duplicative of plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action (see, Grauhard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v Moskovitz, 86 NY2d 112, 122; cf., Big Apple Car v City of New York, 234 AD2d 136). We also agree with the motion court that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state claims premised on estoppel theories (see, Rogers v Town of Islip, 230 AD2d 727). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 153, 699 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-life-productions-l-l-c-v-down-town-assn-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack