Ardwin v. Englert

New York Court of Appeals

Ardwin v. Englert

439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 936, 453 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3521

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 324 (Ardwin v. Englert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ardwin v. Englert, 439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 936, 453 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3521 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

[938]*938OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs. The record is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that at the time the contract was entered into by the parties defendants had disclosed to plaintiff that they were acting as corporate officers of East Hill Foods, Inc., rather than individually. It is beyond the power of this court to make the new findings of fact which would be required to sustain a judgment in favor of defendants on a theory that several separate, unilateral contracts, rather than a single contract, were made.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

[938]*938OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs. The record is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that at the time the contract was entered into by the parties defendants had disclosed to plaintiff that they were acting as corporate officers of East Hill Foods, Inc., rather than individually. It is beyond the power of this court to make the new findings of fact which would be required to sustain a judgment in favor of defendants on a theory that several separate, unilateral contracts, rather than a single contract, were made.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 936, 453 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardwin-v-englert-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack