Spinelli v. Zuckerberg & Santangelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spinelli v. Zuckerberg & Santangelo

223 A.D.2d 697, 637 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 657

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 697 (Spinelli v. Zuckerberg & Santangelo) 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

Spinelli v. Zuckerberg & Santangelo, 223 A.D.2d 697, 637 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated August 16, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendant Joseph T. Santangelo to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him based on, among other things, the failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is [698]*698denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Joseph T. Santangelo.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Joseph T. San-tangelo, the complaint stated cognizable causes of action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, as against him (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 275). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated August 16, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendant Joseph T. Santangelo to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him based on, among other things, the failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is [698]*698denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Joseph T. Santangelo.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Joseph T. San-tangelo, the complaint stated cognizable causes of action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, as against him (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 275). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 697, 637 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinelli-v-zuckerberg-santangelo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack