Mihajlovic v. Cuenca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mihajlovic v. Cuenca

109 A.D.2d 694, 487 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47177

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 694 (Mihajlovic v. Cuenca) 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

Mihajlovic v. Cuenca, 109 A.D.2d 694, 487 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered February 23, 1984, and judgment entered thereon on March 7, 1984, denying that part of the defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery.

In denying the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, essentially seeking damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, Special Term observed that plaintiff should have an opportunity for discovery. The order thereafter entered did not explicitly embody that aspect of Special Term’s determination. Accordingly, in affirming, we do so without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff has had the opportunity for discovery. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered February 23, 1984, and judgment entered thereon on March 7, 1984, denying that part of the defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery.

In denying the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, essentially seeking damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, Special Term observed that plaintiff should have an opportunity for discovery. The order thereafter entered did not explicitly embody that aspect of Special Term’s determination. Accordingly, in affirming, we do so without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff has had the opportunity for discovery. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 694, 487 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mihajlovic-v-cuenca-nyappdiv-1985.