1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 96 A.D.3d
  5. 96 A.D.3d 616 (2012)
 

DONENFELD v. BRILLIANT TECH. CORP.

7999, 7999A, 600664/07.

96 A.D.3d 616 (2012)

948 N.Y.S.2d 18

2012 NY Slip Op 5077

NANCY L. DONENFELD et al., Respondents, v. BRILLIANT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

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

June 21, 2012.

Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment only against BTC and ATI, not against Klepfisz. Therefore, the motion court should not have granted judgment against him (see e.g. Asiatic Petroleum Corp. v Wolf, 41 A.D.2d 617 [1973]). Plaintiffs' argument that summary judgment against Klepfisz was proper because — in addition to moving for summary judgment against BTC and ATI — they made a separate motion to strike defendants...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases