Petrello, et al v. White, et al
| 2:2001cv03082 |
| May 15, 2001 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Denis R. Hurley |
| Michael L. Orenstein |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
460
ORDER re 406 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; MOTION to Strike 402 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim: The motion to dismiss Defendants' counterclaims is granted as to the first counterclaim and granted on that portion of the second counterclaim that seeks fees incurred in connection with the subdivision approval but is otherwise denied. The motion to strike is granted. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 9/11/2018. (Gapinski, Michele)
|
|
Filing
446
ORDER denying 430 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 436 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; terminating 445 Motion for Hearing: Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim for breach of their right of first refu sal on Lot 1 is granted to the extent that they are entitled to Lot 1 for the fair market value of that lot as of November 29, 2000 (i.e., $1,375,000.00) and Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for breach of the right of first refusal on Lot 1 is denied. No judgment shall issue at the present time given that there remain other claims pending in this matter. See attached Memorandum & Order. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 3/8/2018. (Gapinski, Michele)
|
|
Filing
397
ORDER DENYING 392 Motion for Reconsideration, and ADOPTING 382 Report and Recommendation pertaining to plaintiffs' 287 application for attorney's fees. Plaintiffs shall file an amended pleading that conforms with the recommendations set forth in Judge Tomlinson's 382 Report and Recommendation within 21 days of the entry of this Order. See attached Order. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 7/9/2012. (Malley, Sean)
|
|
Filing
391
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 381 ), granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement (docket no. 375 ). For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Report and Recommendation of Judge Tomlinson is adopted in its entirety. Ordered by Senior Judge Denis R. Hurley on 9/30/2011. (Malley, Sean)
|
|
Filing
355
ORDER: Having considered all the arguments of the parties and the report of the court-appointed expert, the Court finds that the contractual provision requiring that Lots 5 and 6 shall be subject to a covenant that they shall be owned by a common own er of record is unambiguous and requires unity of ownership of the two lots. As there are no further issues precluding the closing of title in accordance with the Courts Orders and Judgment granting specific performance of the Contract, the parties are directed to close title to the property at a date, time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties but no later than thirty (30) days from the date hereof. Ordered by Senior Judge Denis R. Hurley on 6/9/2010.
|
|
Filing
342
ORDER denying 326 Motion for Reconsideration : Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 29, 2009 bench decision is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Denis R. Hurley on 12/23/2009.
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Petrello, et al v. White, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
