Mintz & Gold, LLP v Zimmerman

Mintz & Gold, LLP v Zimmerman 2011 NY Slip Op 08490 Decided on November 22, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2011
Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
6140 102768/07

[*1]Mintz & Gold, LLP, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Daniel Zimmerman, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Dean Evan Hart, Defendant.




Daniel A. Zimmerman, Westbury, appellant pro se.
Steven Cohn, Carle Place, appellant pro se.
Mintz & Gold LLP, New York (Paul Ostensen of counsel), for
respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered September 29, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This was defendants' second motion for summary judgment. The motion court should have denied it on that basis, as defendants did not present sufficient cause for their successive motions (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v McClier Corp., 83 AD3d 426 [2011]). Even were we to reach the merits we would affirm because plaintiff was not required to plead special damages to set forth its claim under Civil Rights Law § 70, (see Civil Rights Law § 71).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011

CLERK