Bardach v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bardach v. Weber

2016 NY Slip Op 7847, 144 A.D.3d 553, 42 N.Y.S.3d 11

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

Docket2249 101661/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7847 (Bardach v. Weber) 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

Bardach v. Weber, 2016 NY Slip Op 7847, 144 A.D.3d 553, 42 N.Y.S.3d 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 23, 2015, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 7, 2015, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP (CPLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint reinstated.

The record fails to demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant Weber did not have apparent authority to enter into the transactions at issue (see F.D.I.C. v Providence Coll., 115 F3d 136, 140 [2d Cir 1997]; Restatement [Second] of Agency § 27). Defendant Citrin, a full-service accounting firm, made Weber a partner. The services that Weber purported to perform for plaintiffs were within the purview of a Citrin partner. Weber met with plaintiffs at Citrin’s office and communicated with them via his office email (i.e., the firm’s email system and domain name). These facts raise the inference that Citrin conferred apparent authority on Weber for the transactions at issue (see General Overseas Films, Ltd. v Robin Intl., Inc., 542 F Supp 684, 689 [SD NY 1982], affd 718 F2d 1085 [2d Cir 1983]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 23, 2015, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 7, 2015, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP (CPLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint reinstated.

The record fails to demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant Weber did not have apparent authority to enter into the transactions at issue (see F.D.I.C. v Providence Coll., 115 F3d 136, 140 [2d Cir 1997]; Restatement [Second] of Agency § 27). Defendant Citrin, a full-service accounting firm, made Weber a partner. The services that Weber purported to perform for plaintiffs were within the purview of a Citrin partner. Weber met with plaintiffs at Citrin’s office and communicated with them via his office email (i.e., the firm’s email system and domain name). These facts raise the inference that Citrin conferred apparent authority on Weber for the transactions at issue (see General Overseas Films, Ltd. v Robin Intl., Inc., 542 F Supp 684, 689 [SD NY 1982], affd 718 F2d 1085 [2d Cir 1983]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7847, 144 A.D.3d 553, 42 N.Y.S.3d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bardach-v-weber-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack