Case Name: Douglas Stein, Appellant, v. Ted Doukas et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-05-13
Citations: 128 A.D.3d 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: Douglas Stein, Appellant, v Ted Doukas et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 805–806

Head Matter:
Douglas Stein, Appellant, v Ted Doukas et al., Respondents.
[7 NYS3d 904]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 13, 2012, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, his cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants' answer.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants' answer and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
On a prior appeal in this action (see Stein v Doukas, 98 AD3d 1024 [2012]), we granted the defendants partial relief on their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 and 3211 (a) and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon directed the dismissal of several causes of action. Additionally, on a related appeal decided herewith (see Stein v Doukas, 128 AD3d 803 [2015]), we are granting, in part, the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert certain additional causes of action. In light of our dispositions of the prior appeal and the related appeal, the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants' answer is no longer academic, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits of that cross motion (see Horowitz v 763 E. Assoc., LLC, 125 AD3d 808 [2015]), and thereafter for a new determination of that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.