Ben-Dak v. Sazer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ben-Dak v. Sazer

286 A.D.2d 615, 730 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8566

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 615 (Ben-Dak v. Sazer) 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

Ben-Dak v. Sazer, 286 A.D.2d 615, 730 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2000, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motions to compel defendant’s immediate release of certain funds that defendant is allegedly holding in escrow, and to refer certain alleged misconduct by defendant’s attorney to the disciplinary authorities, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[616]*616Issues of fact exist as to whether the parties agreed that the proceeds realized from the sale of plaintiffs stock should remain in escrow beyond the completion of the sale transaction, i.e., whether the escrowing of the proceeds was intended for the benefit of the stock purchaser or plaintiff. To release the subject funds to plaintiff would be, in effect, to decide in his favor that defendant was his attorney, rather than his coventurer, and thereby prematurely determine the merits of the action. While critical of the attorneys for both sides, the IAS court refused to initiate disciplinary or other punitive action against either, and we perceive no reason to disturb that ruling at this time. Concur — Rubin, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman 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 (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2000, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motions to compel defendant’s immediate release of certain funds that defendant is allegedly holding in escrow, and to refer certain alleged misconduct by defendant’s attorney to the disciplinary authorities, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[616]*616Issues of fact exist as to whether the parties agreed that the proceeds realized from the sale of plaintiffs stock should remain in escrow beyond the completion of the sale transaction, i.e., whether the escrowing of the proceeds was intended for the benefit of the stock purchaser or plaintiff. To release the subject funds to plaintiff would be, in effect, to decide in his favor that defendant was his attorney, rather than his coventurer, and thereby prematurely determine the merits of the action. While critical of the attorneys for both sides, the IAS court refused to initiate disciplinary or other punitive action against either, and we perceive no reason to disturb that ruling at this time. Concur — Rubin, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 615, 730 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-dak-v-sazer-nyappdiv-2001.