2012-09-11 Herbert FEINBERG, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jerome S. BOROS, Esq., et al., Defendants–Appellants. Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Edward A. Friedman, Robert D. Kaplan and Steven E. Frankel of counsel), for appellants. Storch Amini & Munves PC, New York (Steven Storch, Lita Beth Wright and Thomas M. Monahan of counsel), and Richard L. Derzaw, New York, for respondent. DAVID B. SAXE Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Edward A. Friedman, Robert D. Kaplan
Argued November 23, 1999 December 20, 1999 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated February 26, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 17, 1999, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the trial calendar. Ivars Berzins, P.C., Babylon, N.Y., for appellant.
May 21, 1959 Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, JOHN C. LEONFORTE, J. Simpson Thacher Bartlett ( William J. Manning and Whitney North Seymour, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Harry A. Roth for respondent. Per Curiam. The defendant rested on the plaintiff's case and there is no proof whatever that the defendant was prejudiced by or changed his position in any way in reliance on the plaintiff's conduct. It is self-evident that but for a mistake the plaintiff
When relief against a mistake is sought in an action or by way of defense or counterclaim, relief shall not be denied merely because the mistake is one of law rather than one of fact. N.Y. CPLR 3005