From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mihajlovic v. Cuenca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1985
109 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 26, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.).


In denying the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, essentially seeking damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, Special Term observed that plaintiff should have an opportunity for discovery. The order thereafter entered did not explicitly embody that aspect of Special Term's determination. Accordingly, in affirming, we do so without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff has had the opportunity for discovery.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.


Summaries of

Mihajlovic v. Cuenca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1985
109 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Mihajlovic v. Cuenca

Case Details

Full title:DANILO MIHAJLOVIC, Respondent, v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 26, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Butkow v. City of New York

The prior order is incorporated herein by reference. A motion for summary judgment may be renewed if it was…