Madison Equities v. MZ Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison Equities v. MZ Management Corp.

307 A.D.2d 956, 763 N.Y.S.2d 478

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

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 956 (Madison Equities v. MZ Management Corp.) 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

Madison Equities v. MZ Management Corp., 307 A.D.2d 956, 763 N.Y.S.2d 478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, among other things, that a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant MZ Management Corp. is in full force and effect, the defendants MZ Management Corp. and Esseks Hefter & Angel appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 3, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with" costs.

According the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference (see CPLR 3211; see also Meliso v Pinter, 289 AD2d 462 [2001]), the complaint sufficiently states the causes of action alleged. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, among other things, that a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant MZ Management Corp. is in full force and effect, the defendants MZ Management Corp. and Esseks Hefter & Angel appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 3, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with" costs.

According the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference (see CPLR 3211; see also Meliso v Pinter, 289 AD2d 462 [2001]), the complaint sufficiently states the causes of action alleged. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 956, 763 N.Y.S.2d 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-equities-v-mz-management-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack