Berg v. Repap Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berg v. Repap Enterprises, Inc.

283 A.D.2d 341, 724 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 341 (Berg v. Repap Enterprises, 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

Berg v. Repap Enterprises, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 341, 724 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2000, which denied the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on the cause of action for breach of an employment contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in favor of either party is precluded by issues of fact, including whether defendant’s approval of the subject contract was fraudulently induced by plaintiff’s misrepresentations that the contract was prepared by counsel he had retained on behalf of defendant’s Board rather than himself, and reviewed by a compensation expert who was independent of such counsel. At the least, there should be disclosure from such counsel (CPLR 3212 [f]). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them [342]*342unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2000, which denied the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on the cause of action for breach of an employment contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in favor of either party is precluded by issues of fact, including whether defendant’s approval of the subject contract was fraudulently induced by plaintiff’s misrepresentations that the contract was prepared by counsel he had retained on behalf of defendant’s Board rather than himself, and reviewed by a compensation expert who was independent of such counsel. At the least, there should be disclosure from such counsel (CPLR 3212 [f]). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them [342]*342unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 341, 724 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-v-repap-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2001.