Movielab, Inc. v. Mastercraft Record Plating, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Movielab, Inc. v. Mastercraft Record Plating, Inc.

39 A.D.2d 691, 332 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4522

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

DecidedMay 23, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 691 (Movielab, Inc. v. Mastercraft Record Plating, Inc.) 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

Movielab, Inc. v. Mastercraft Record Plating, Inc., 39 A.D.2d 691, 332 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 25, 1971, denying defendant’s motion for a rehearing, on additional papers, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted, and upon such rehearing plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment granted only to the extent of granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment in the sum of $2,300 for use and occupancy during the month of August, 1970, and directing dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim, and otherwise denied. Except to the extent indicated, we find sufficient triable issues raised in the papers submitted hereon to warrant denial of summary judgement. Moreover, under the circumstances here presented, the question of damages and the issue of liability are so interrelated that no time or effort of either the court or the litigants would be saved by the direction below for a separate assessment of damages. (Hastings v. Richard, Ellis & Co., 36 A D 2d 695.) Concur—-Markewich, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 25, 1971, denying defendant’s motion for a rehearing, on additional papers, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted, and upon such rehearing plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment granted only to the extent of granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment in the sum of $2,300 for use and occupancy during the month of August, 1970, and directing dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim, and otherwise denied. Except to the extent indicated, we find sufficient triable issues raised in the papers submitted hereon to warrant denial of summary judgement. Moreover, under the circumstances here presented, the question of damages and the issue of liability are so interrelated that no time or effort of either the court or the litigants would be saved by the direction below for a separate assessment of damages. (Hastings v. Richard, Ellis & Co., 36 A D 2d 695.) Concur—-Markewich, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 691, 332 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/movielab-inc-v-mastercraft-record-plating-inc-nyappdiv-1972.