Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

433 SUTTON CORP. Appellant, v. Robert BRODER, Respondent.

Cantor, Epstein & Mazzola, LLP, New York City (Robert I. Cantor and Brett L. Carrick of counsel), for appellant. Rappaport Hertz Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for respondent.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, order of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. The Appellate Division erred in determining that defendant was the prevailing party. Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to attorneys' fees. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

433 Sutton Corp. v. Broder
(Apr 1, 2014)