Case Name: Danilo Mihajlovic, Respondent, v. Rodolfo M. Cuenca et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1985-03-26
Citations: 109 A.D.2d 694
Docket Number: 
Parties: Danilo Mihajlovic, Respondent, v Rodolfo M. Cuenca et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
Danilo Mihajlovic, Respondent, v Rodolfo M. Cuenca et al., Appellants.

Opinion:
— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered February 23, 1984, and judgment entered thereon on March 7, 1984, denying that part of the defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery.
In denying the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, essentially seeking damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, Special Term observed that plaintiff should have an opportunity for discovery. The order thereafter entered did not explicitly embody that aspect of Special Term's determination. Accordingly, in affirming, we do so without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff has had the opportunity for discovery. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.