Stein v. Doukas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Doukas

128 A.D.3d 805, 7 N.Y.S.3d 904

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

DecidedMay 13, 2015

Docket2012-06188

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 805 (Stein v. Doukas) 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

Stein v. Doukas, 128 A.D.3d 805, 7 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 13, 2012, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, his cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On a prior appeal in this action (see Stein v Doukas, 98 AD3d 1024 [2012]), we granted the defendants partial relief on their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 and 3211 (a) and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon directed the dismissal of several causes of action. Additionally, on a related appeal decided herewith (see Stein v Doukas, 128 AD3d 803 [2015]), we are granting, in part, the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert certain additional causes of action. In light of our dispositions of the prior appeal and the related appeal, the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer is no longer academic, and we remit the matter to the *806 Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of that cross motion (see Horowitz v 763 E. Assoc., LLC, 125 AD3d 808 [2015]), and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, 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 fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 13, 2012, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, his cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On a prior appeal in this action (see Stein v Doukas, 98 AD3d 1024 [2012]), we granted the defendants partial relief on their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 and 3211 (a) and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon directed the dismissal of several causes of action. Additionally, on a related appeal decided herewith (see Stein v Doukas, 128 AD3d 803 [2015]), we are granting, in part, the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert certain additional causes of action. In light of our dispositions of the prior appeal and the related appeal, the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer is no longer academic, and we remit the matter to the *806 Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of that cross motion (see Horowitz v 763 E. Assoc., LLC, 125 AD3d 808 [2015]), and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 805, 7 N.Y.S.3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-doukas-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack