Aigen v. Dimin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aigen v. Dimin

86 A.D.2d 896, 447 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15564

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 896 (Aigen v. Dimin) 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

Aigen v. Dimin, 86 A.D.2d 896, 447 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 3, 1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision denying the motion, the following: “as to the second cause of action but the motion is granted as to the first cause of action.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is apparent from plaintiffs’ answers to defendant’s interrogatories that the claim of damages in the first cause of action is based solely upon unrealized profits. The law is well settled that one cannot obtain unrealized profits in an action for fraud (Reno v Bull, 226 NY 546; Oxenfeldt v Yonofsky, 276 App Div 374; Ungewitter v Toch, 31 AD2d 583). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for fraud, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 3, 1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision denying the motion, the following: “as to the second cause of action but the motion is granted as to the first cause of action.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is apparent from plaintiffs’ answers to defendant’s interrogatories that the claim of damages in the first cause of action is based solely upon unrealized profits. The law is well settled that one cannot obtain unrealized profits in an action for fraud (Reno v Bull, 226 NY 546; Oxenfeldt v Yonofsky, 276 App Div 374; Ungewitter v Toch, 31 AD2d 583). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 896, 447 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aigen-v-dimin-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack