Legal Opinion
South Pierre Associates v. Meyers
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 2006PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Shlomo S. Hagler, J.
*956Defendant Cary Meyers moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment “based on the fact that there exists no material fact requiring a trial on damages.” Plaintiffs South Pierre Associates and Urban Associates, LLC (SPA and UA or plaintiffs) oppose the motion and cross-move for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 granting plaintiffs an award of sanctions against the defendant for filing a frivolous motion. Defendant opposes the motion. Both the motion and cross motion are consolidated herein for disposition.
Background
SPA is the owner of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Barrett v. JacobsNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Murray v. . BeardNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth & Co., L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- WRAP-N-PACK, INC. v. KayeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007