Abt v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abt v. Lawrence

167 A.D.2d 234, 562 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 234 (Abt v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abt v. Lawrence, 167 A.D.2d 234, 562 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on February 28, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 for renewal of a prior motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this dispute over real estate broker commissions, the IAS court previously determined that there were issues of fact as to the intent of the parties precluding a grant of plaintiff’s original motion for partial summary judgment. This court affirmed (154 AD2d 958). Renewal of the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff did not present any new material facts (see, Bayridge Air Rights v Blitman Constr. Corp., 160 AD2d 589). In any event, plaintiff has at most raised additional issues of fact which warrant a trial (see, James v Nestor, 120 AD2d 442, 443). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ. [See, — AD2d — (Jan. 31, 1991).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on February 28, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 for renewal of a prior motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this dispute over real estate broker commissions, the IAS court previously determined that there were issues of fact as to the intent of the parties precluding a grant of plaintiff’s original motion for partial summary judgment. This court affirmed (154 AD2d 958). Renewal of the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff did not present any new material facts (see, Bayridge Air Rights v Blitman Constr. Corp., 160 AD2d 589). In any event, plaintiff has at most raised additional issues of fact which warrant a trial (see, James v Nestor, 120 AD2d 442, 443). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ. [See, — AD2d — (Jan. 31, 1991).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 234, 562 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abt-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack