Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman

89 A.D.3d 609, 932 N.Y.2d 906

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 609 (Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman) 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

Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman, 89 A.D.3d 609, 932 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 609, 932 N.Y.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mintz-gold-llp-v-zimmerman-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack