Rajan v. Harvey Insler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rajan v. Harvey Insler

300 A.D.2d 463, 750 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 463 (Rajan v. Harvey Insler) 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

Rajan v. Harvey Insler, 300 A.D.2d 463, 750 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Signature Health Center appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated January 29, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Due to the lack of disclosure, it would be premature to grant summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Almonte v Latortue, 293 AD2d 431; AIT Intl. v Federal Express Corp., 278 AD2d 439). Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Signature Health Center appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated January 29, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Due to the lack of disclosure, it would be premature to grant summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Almonte v Latortue, 293 AD2d 431; AIT Intl. v Federal Express Corp., 278 AD2d 439). Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 463, 750 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajan-v-harvey-insler-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack