Vinnik v. 795 Fifth Avenue Corp.
465 N.E.2d 45, 62 N.Y.2d 698, 476 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4304
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Appellate Division and for the reasons stated by that court (94 AD2d 685) that the documents submitted by defendants on their motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 1, 7) are not sufficient, without more, to constitute a defense to the causes of action alleged in the complaint warranting its dismissal.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vinnik v. 795 Fifth Avenue Corp., 465 N.E.2d 45, 62 N.Y.2d 698, 476 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4304 (N.Y. 1984).
465 N.E.2d 45 (Vinnik v. 795 Fifth Avenue Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chemical Bank v. 635 Park Avenue Corp.
155 Misc. 2d 433 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Vinnik
127 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Demas v. 325 West End Avenue Corp.
127 A.D.2d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)