Legal Opinion
Goldman v. Garofalo
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 27, 1978PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
James F. Niehoff, J.
In this action brought as a class action, plaintiff moves for an order permitting the action to be so maintained pursuant *792to CPLR 902. The court is also presented with cross motions by both parties for summary judgment.
THE FACTS
The complaint originally consisted of two causes of action. Upon a motion to dismiss for insufficiency, the second cause of action was dismissed and the first cause of action was held to be legally sufficient on its face. That determination by this court (Albert, J.) was affirmed by the Appellate Division (59 AD2d 933).
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Richards Conditioning Corp. v. OleetNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Vickers v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Vickers v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1976
- Lindner Appraisal Corp. v. H. Mabel Frewil Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1973
- Goldman v. GarofaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 1979
- Cannon v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York Supreme Court · 1980
- Brandon v. ChefetzNew York Supreme Court · 1983
- Conrad v. HackettNew York Supreme Court · 1990
- Goldman v. GarofaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979