Community Energy Alternatives Inc. v. Peatco II, L. P.

228 A.D.2d 309, 643 N.Y.2d 1000, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7137
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The record does not raise triable issues of fact as to plaintiffs’ claim that information about the use of untested ancillary equipment was fraudulently withheld. There is no evidence supporting an inference that fraudulent intent existed and ac[310]*310cordingly this claim should have been dismissed. In all other respects, we find that the motion court sustained those causes of action raising triable issues of fact, including legitimate inferences that could be drawn from the facts (see, Matter of Surrey Strathmore Corp, v Dollar Sav. Bank, 36 NY2d 173, 177).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Community Energy Alternatives Inc. v. Peatco II, L. P., 228 A.D.2d 309, 643 N.Y.2d 1000, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 309 (Community Energy Alternatives Inc. v. Peatco II, L. P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Community Energy Alternatives Inc. v. Peatco II
243 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)