Bazerman v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bazerman v. Edwards

295 A.D.2d 115, 742 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 115 (Bazerman v. Edwards) 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

Bazerman v. Edwards, 295 A.D.2d 115, 742 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 22, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from and appealable, granted plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss the third counterclaim and denied defendant’s motion for sanctions against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed; appeal from that portion of the aforesaid order denying defendant’s motion seeking partial summary judgment upon her fourth counterclaim, unanimously dismissed as moot; all without costs.

After the motion and cross motion were decided, a nonjury trial was conducted on, inter alia, defendant’s fourth counterclaim for breach of contract for failure to pay on a note. The trial court found the note unenforceable for lack of consideration. Thus, defendant’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment upon her fourth counterclaim is moot (see, Hersh v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 258, 259; General Elec. Co. v Rabin, 177 AD2d 354, 356).

The motion court properly dismissed the third counterclaim for fraud as duplicative of the fourth counterclaim for breach of contract (see, Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp., 288 AD2d 41). In view of the dismissal of the third counterclaim for fraud, there was no predicate for defendant’s request for imposition of a constructive trust, that remedy being “fraud rectifying” rather than “intent-enforcing” (Bankers Sec. Life Ins. Socy. v Shakerdge, 49 NY2d 939, 940).

The motion court properly refused to award sanctions against plaintiff. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 22, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from and appealable, granted plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss the third counterclaim and denied defendant’s motion for sanctions against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed; appeal from that portion of the aforesaid order denying defendant’s motion seeking partial summary judgment upon her fourth counterclaim, unanimously dismissed as moot; all without costs.

After the motion and cross motion were decided, a nonjury trial was conducted on, inter alia, defendant’s fourth counterclaim for breach of contract for failure to pay on a note. The trial court found the note unenforceable for lack of consideration. Thus, defendant’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment upon her fourth counterclaim is moot (see, Hersh v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 258, 259; General Elec. Co. v Rabin, 177 AD2d 354, 356).

The motion court properly dismissed the third counterclaim for fraud as duplicative of the fourth counterclaim for breach of contract (see, Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp., 288 AD2d 41). In view of the dismissal of the third counterclaim for fraud, there was no predicate for defendant’s request for imposition of a constructive trust, that remedy being “fraud rectifying” rather than “intent-enforcing” (Bankers Sec. Life Ins. Socy. v Shakerdge, 49 NY2d 939, 940).

The motion court properly refused to award sanctions against plaintiff. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 115, 742 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bazerman-v-edwards-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack