Zetes v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zetes v. Stephens

108 A.D.3d 1020, 967 N.Y.S.2d 860

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2013

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.3d 1020 (Zetes v. Stephens) 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

Zetes v. Stephens, 108 A.D.3d 1020, 967 N.Y.S.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered April 4, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendants Kelly A. Stephens and Lucas A. Stephens for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion of defendants Kelly A. Stephens and Lucas A. Stephens for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, fourth, and ninth causes of action and so much of the tenth cause of action as alleges tortious interference with contractual relations and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

[1021]*1021Same memorandum as in Zetes v Stephens (108 AD3d 1014 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered April 4, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendants Kelly A. Stephens and Lucas A. Stephens for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion of defendants Kelly A. Stephens and Lucas A. Stephens for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, fourth, and ninth causes of action and so much of the tenth cause of action as alleges tortious interference with contractual relations and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

[1021]*1021Same memorandum as in Zetes v Stephens (108 AD3d 1014 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.3d 1020, 967 N.Y.S.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zetes-v-stephens-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack