Braver v. Widman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braver v. Widman

115 A.D.2d 517, 496 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54926

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 517 (Braver v. Widman) 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

Braver v. Widman, 115 A.D.2d 517, 496 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated April 11, 1985, as amended by an order of the same court, dated April 16, 1985, as granted those branches of defendant Leonard Widman’s motion which sought dismissal of the second and fourth causes of action of the complaint as against said defendant.

Order, as amended, affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A review of the allegations in the second and fourth causes of action indicates that the claimed damages flow from the alleged breach of the contract between the plaintiffs and the corporate defendant, and not from any alleged fraudulent [518]*518misrepresentations on the part of defendant Leonard Widman. Accordingly, dismissal of those causes of action as against defendant Widman was proper. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 contract, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated April 11, 1985, as amended by an order of the same court, dated April 16, 1985, as granted those branches of defendant Leonard Widman’s motion which sought dismissal of the second and fourth causes of action of the complaint as against said defendant.

Order, as amended, affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A review of the allegations in the second and fourth causes of action indicates that the claimed damages flow from the alleged breach of the contract between the plaintiffs and the corporate defendant, and not from any alleged fraudulent [518]*518misrepresentations on the part of defendant Leonard Widman. Accordingly, dismissal of those causes of action as against defendant Widman was proper. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 517, 496 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braver-v-widman-nyappdiv-1985.