Arnell Group Ltd. v. Danskin, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnell Group Ltd. v. Danskin, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 156 (Arnell Group Ltd. v. Danskin, Inc.) 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

Arnell Group Ltd. v. Danskin, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered November 8, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs-.

Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff agreed to treat defendant’s prepayment of one half of the estimate for the fall 1999 photo shoot project as payment in full in light of defendant’s dissatisfaction with plaintiffs work, and whether the parties agreed to a balance due after their relationship was terminated. We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered November 8, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs-.

Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff agreed to treat defendant’s prepayment of one half of the estimate for the fall 1999 photo shoot project as payment in full in light of defendant’s dissatisfaction with plaintiffs work, and whether the parties agreed to a balance due after their relationship was terminated. We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnell-group-ltd-v-danskin-inc-nyappdiv-2001.