Curcio v. Samson Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curcio v. Samson Construction Co.

82 A.D.3d 664, 920 N.Y.2d 73

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 664 (Curcio v. Samson Construction Co.) 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

Curcio v. Samson Construction Co., 82 A.D.3d 664, 920 N.Y.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[665]*665The court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment on his claim for a share of defendant Samson Construction Co., Inc.’s net profits. Although, pursuant to his employment agreement, plaintiff was to receive, inter alia, 50% of Samson’s net profits, the record clearly presents triable issues as to whether plaintiff has been paid the amounts sought, and whether Samson operated at a net loss in 2007. In its determination of the motion, the court should not have considered plaintiff’s submissions to be more credible than those of Samson (see generally Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 315 [2004]; Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

[665]*665The court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment on his claim for a share of defendant Samson Construction Co., Inc.’s net profits. Although, pursuant to his employment agreement, plaintiff was to receive, inter alia, 50% of Samson’s net profits, the record clearly presents triable issues as to whether plaintiff has been paid the amounts sought, and whether Samson operated at a net loss in 2007. In its determination of the motion, the court should not have considered plaintiff’s submissions to be more credible than those of Samson (see generally Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 315 [2004]; Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 664, 920 N.Y.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curcio-v-samson-construction-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack