Case Name: Louis Pappas, Respondent, v. Philip Pilevsky, Individually and Doing Business as Philips International, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-03-19
Citations: 225 A.D.2d 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis Pappas, Respondent, v Philip Pilevsky, Individually and Doing Business as Philips International, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
Louis Pappas, Respondent, v Philip Pilevsky, Individually and Doing Business as Philips International, et al., Appellants.
[640 NYS2d 747]

Opinion:
In this action for an accounting, defendants moved to dismiss just prior to commencement of the disclosure that was intended to clarify the nature of the defendant business entities, and the interaction and relationship among those entities and the individual parties. As it appeared that facts essential to justify opposition to defendants' motion may exist but could not then be stated, the IAS Court properly denied the motion with leave to renew after completion of appropriate disclosure (CPLR 3211 [d]; 3212 [f]; Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497; Simpson v Term Indus., 126 AD2d 484, 486). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.