Pennino v. Lasersurge, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pennino v. Lasersurge, Inc.

214 A.D.2d 959, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 959 (Pennino v. Lasersurge, 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

Pennino v. Lasersurge, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 959, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The previous denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 [960]*960AD2d 939), made before discovery was initiated, did not preclude a second motion based upon new information elicited during disclosure (see, Schriptek Mktg. v Columbus McKinnon Corp., 187 AD2d 800, 801, lv denied 81 NY2d 704; Chiarello v Harold Sylvan, P. C., 161 AD2d 948, 949; cf., Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954 [decided herewith]). Supreme Court properly concluded, however, that the new information did not warrant a different result. Questions of fact remain with respect to the alleged agreement to sell plaintiff stock in defendant Lasersurge, Inc. (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., supra), as well as plaintiff’s entitlement to recover for services rendered to defendants based upon theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s cross motion to compel further disclosure. The information sought is relevant to the amount of plaintiff’s damages under the fourth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment (see, Graphic Offset Co. v Torre, 78 AD2d 788). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present —Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon and Callahan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The previous denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 [960]*960AD2d 939), made before discovery was initiated, did not preclude a second motion based upon new information elicited during disclosure (see, Schriptek Mktg. v Columbus McKinnon Corp., 187 AD2d 800, 801, lv denied 81 NY2d 704; Chiarello v Harold Sylvan, P. C., 161 AD2d 948, 949; cf., Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954 [decided herewith]). Supreme Court properly concluded, however, that the new information did not warrant a different result. Questions of fact remain with respect to the alleged agreement to sell plaintiff stock in defendant Lasersurge, Inc. (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., supra), as well as plaintiff’s entitlement to recover for services rendered to defendants based upon theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s cross motion to compel further disclosure. The information sought is relevant to the amount of plaintiff’s damages under the fourth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment (see, Graphic Offset Co. v Torre, 78 AD2d 788). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present —Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 959, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennino-v-lasersurge-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack