Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp.

45 A.D.3d 1367, 844 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1367 (Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp.) 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

Birnbaum v. Rohm Services Corp., 45 A.D.3d 1367, 844 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered December 6, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, pursuant to which the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment. We add only that, contrary to the contention of plaintiff on appeal, the court properly denied that part of his cross mo[1368]*1368tion for an accounting. An accounting would serve no purpose at this juncture, inasmuch as the underlying substantive dispute between the parties has properly been resolved against plaintiff. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered December 6, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, pursuant to which the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment. We add only that, contrary to the contention of plaintiff on appeal, the court properly denied that part of his cross mo[1368]*1368tion for an accounting. An accounting would serve no purpose at this juncture, inasmuch as the underlying substantive dispute between the parties has properly been resolved against plaintiff. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 1367, 844 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birnbaum-v-rohm-services-corp-nyappdiv-2007.