Cane v. Baer Marks & Upham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cane v. Baer Marks & Upham

244 A.D.2d 230, 664 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 230 (Cane v. Baer Marks & Upham) 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

Cane v. Baer Marks & Upham, 244 A.D.2d 230, 664 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered September 4, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing so much of plaintiffs third cause of action as alleges that defendant Levitas made improper political contributions and that defendant Handel misappropriated investment opportunities, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment and for an order excluding certain documents from evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants fail to demonstrate that the actions taken by the new management team of defendant partnership between 1982 and 1985 and thereafter were done in accordance with the terms of the Partnership Agreement or that such provisions were waived, and the evidence offered by plaintiff is sufficient to raise issues of fact as to the other aspects of the case raised on defendants’ appeal (see, Communications & Entertainment Corp. v Hibbard Brown & Co., 202 AD2d 191). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered September 4, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing so much of plaintiffs third cause of action as alleges that defendant Levitas made improper political contributions and that defendant Handel misappropriated investment opportunities, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment and for an order excluding certain documents from evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants fail to demonstrate that the actions taken by the new management team of defendant partnership between 1982 and 1985 and thereafter were done in accordance with the terms of the Partnership Agreement or that such provisions were waived, and the evidence offered by plaintiff is sufficient to raise issues of fact as to the other aspects of the case raised on defendants’ appeal (see, Communications & Entertainment Corp. v Hibbard Brown & Co., 202 AD2d 191). We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 230, 664 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-baer-marks-upham-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack