GEDULA 26, LLC Plaintiffsres-ap, v. LIGHTSTONE ACQUISITIONS III LLC Defendants-Appellants-res

4071. GEDULA 26, LLC Plaintiffsres-ap, v. LIGHTSTONE ACQUISITIONS III LLC Defendants-Appellants-res — Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Alexander Lycoyannis of counsel), for appellants-res — Coritsidis & Lambros, PLLC, New York (Jeffrey A. Gangemi of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract, wrongful eviction, reimbursement of legal fees, and punitive damages or, in any event, all claims as against defendant Lightstone Group, and granted the motion as to the fraud claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the claim for punitive damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4071. GEDULA 26, LLC Plaintiffsres-ap, v. LIGHTSTONE ACQUISITIONS III LLC Defendants-Appellants-res — Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Alexander Lycoyannis of counsel), for appellants-res — Coritsidis & Lambros, PLLC, New York (Jeffrey A. Gangemi of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract, wrongful eviction, reimbursement of legal fees, and punitive damages or, in any event, all claims as against defendant Lightstone Group, and granted the motion as to the fraud claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the claim for punitive damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court was not precluded by the single motion rule from considering defendants’ motion, because the stipulation entered into by the parties when defendants withdrew their initial motion based on improper service contemplated that defendants might “otherwise move with respect to [the] Complaint.”

GEDULA 26, LLC Plaintiffsres-ap, v. LIGHTSTONE ACQUISITIONS III LLC Defendants-Appellants-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal