Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman
89 A.D.3d 609, 932 N.Y.2d 906
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 A.D.3d 600 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published
Opinion
This was defendants’ second motion for summary judgment. The motion court should have denied it on that basis, as defendants did not present sufficient cause for their successive motions (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v McClier Corp., 83 AD3d 426 [2011]). Even were we to reach the merits we would affirm because plaintiff was not required to plead special damages to set forth its claim under Civil Rights Law § 70 (see Civil Rights Law § 71). Concur — Moskowitz, J.E, Renwick, DeGrasse, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman, 89 A.D.3d 609, 932 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 609 (Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
NYP Holdings, Inc. v. McClier Corp.
83 A.D.3d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)