Pappas v. Pilevsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pappas v. Pilevsky

225 A.D.2d 394, 640 N.Y.2d 747, 640 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 394 (Pappas v. Pilevsky) 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

Pappas v. Pilevsky, 225 A.D.2d 394, 640 N.Y.2d 747, 640 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action for an accounting, defendants moved to dismiss just prior to commencement of the disclosure that was intended to clarify the nature of the defendant business entities, and the interaction and relationship among those entities and the individual parties. As it appeared that facts essential to justify opposition to defendants’ motion may exist but could not then be stated, the IAS Court properly denied the motion with leave to renew after completion of appropriate disclosure (CPLR 3211 [d]; 3212 [f]; Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497; Simpson v Term Indus., 126 AD2d 484, 486). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

In this action for an accounting, defendants moved to dismiss just prior to commencement of the disclosure that was intended to clarify the nature of the defendant business entities, and the interaction and relationship among those entities and the individual parties. As it appeared that facts essential to justify opposition to defendants’ motion may exist but could not then be stated, the IAS Court properly denied the motion with leave to renew after completion of appropriate disclosure (CPLR 3211 [d]; 3212 [f]; Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497; Simpson v Term Indus., 126 AD2d 484, 486). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 394, 640 N.Y.2d 747, 640 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappas-v-pilevsky-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack