Public Administrators v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Administrators v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.

258 A.D.2d 469, 682 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 469 (Public Administrators v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.) 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

Public Administrators v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A., 258 A.D.2d 469, 682 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In addition to the existence of an unresolved question of fact that itself warranted the denial of summary judgment, plaintiffs’ complaint was not pleaded with sufficient particularity to apprise defendants that payment of earned wages was among the damages being sought (CPLR 3013, 3017 [a]; see also, Vanscoy v Namic USA Corp., 234 AD2d 680, 681-682; Giaimo & Vreeburg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41, 44, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 803; Abrahami v UPC Constr. Co., 176 AD2d 180).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In addition to the existence of an unresolved question of fact that itself warranted the denial of summary judgment, plaintiffs’ complaint was not pleaded with sufficient particularity to apprise defendants that payment of earned wages was among the damages being sought (CPLR 3013, 3017 [a]; see also, Vanscoy v Namic USA Corp., 234 AD2d 680, 681-682; Giaimo & Vreeburg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41, 44, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 803; Abrahami v UPC Constr. Co., 176 AD2d 180).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 469, 682 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-administrators-v-frota-oceanica-brasileira-s-a-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack