Legal Opinion
Gorman v. Grodensky
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 16, 1985PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Herman Cahn, J.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. Defendants cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In a second motion, plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint.
In the original complaint, plaintiff Herman Gorman (Gorman) alleges that since 1967 defendant Maurice A. Grodensky (Grodensky) and one David B. LeSchack (LeSchack) were the sole partners in the partnership of LeSchack & Grodensky. Both Grodensky and LeSchack were attorneys practicing law and the partnership was a law firm. This partnership is also a named defendant, as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In re the Estate of WeinstockNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Pink v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Bell v. Board of Regents of the UniversityNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- United Calendar Manufacturing Corp. v. HuangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Rosenthal v. HarwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Evans & Luptak, PLC v. LizzaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re Presidential Life SecuritiesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Practice Management, Ltd. v. SchwartzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
- Ungar v. Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P. C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Rodriguez v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.