Barker v. Tamarin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barker v. Tamarin

271 A.D.2d 467, 706 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 467 (Barker v. Tamarin) 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

Barker v. Tamarin, 271 A.D.2d 467, 706 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a fiduciary duty, the defendant Robert T. Tamarin appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 27, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thus, his motion was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a fiduciary duty, the defendant Robert T. Tamarin appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 27, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thus, his motion was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 467, 706 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-tamarin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack