Tartaglione v. Kuder Island Colony, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tartaglione v. Kuder Island Colony, Inc.

72 A.D.3d 935, 898 N.Y.S.2d 501

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 935 (Tartaglione v. Kuder Island Colony, Inc.) 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

Tartaglione v. Kuder Island Colony, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 935, 898 N.Y.S.2d 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a shareholders’ derivative action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the [936]*936Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered June 2, 2009, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants’ cross motion, inter alia, for sum: mary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been determined in an order entered January 16, 2008.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants’ cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since the new evidence he submitted would not have warranted denial of the cross motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Khan v Nelson, 68 AD3d 1062 [2009]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a shareholders’ derivative action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the [936]*936Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered June 2, 2009, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants’ cross motion, inter alia, for sum: mary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been determined in an order entered January 16, 2008.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants’ cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since the new evidence he submitted would not have warranted denial of the cross motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Khan v Nelson, 68 AD3d 1062 [2009]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 935, 898 N.Y.S.2d 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tartaglione-v-kuder-island-colony-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack