Legal Opinion
Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 28, 1972PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtJoseph Liff, J.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff may not maintain a class action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 3) and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). The court may treat the application as one for summary judgment and afford the parties an opportunity to submit further evidence to support their respective positions (Mareno v. Kibbe, 32 A D 2d *172825; Lustig v. Congregation B’Nai Israel of Midwood, 62 Misc 2d 216). We may also order an immediate trial of specified issues (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]).
On this application issues…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Kovarsky v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Niagara Falls Power Co. v. WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Young v. ShuartNew York Supreme Court · 1971
- Bouton v. . Van BurenNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974