Smith v. Hanauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Hanauer

249 A.D.2d 293, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 293 (Smith v. Hanauer) 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

Smith v. Hanauer, 249 A.D.2d 293, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to re[294]*294cover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated April 2, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was, inter alia, to strike the answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Blasi v Gonzalez, 231 AD2d 483). Furthermore, since there was only hope and speculation as to what additional discovery would uncover, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion even though discovery was incomplete (see, Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to re[294]*294cover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated April 2, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was, inter alia, to strike the answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Blasi v Gonzalez, 231 AD2d 483). Furthermore, since there was only hope and speculation as to what additional discovery would uncover, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion even though discovery was incomplete (see, Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 293, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hanauer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack