Dion Friedland v. Cap Juluca Partners I

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dion Friedland v. Cap Juluca Partners I

221 A.D.2d 284, 635 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12137

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 284 (Dion Friedland v. Cap Juluca Partners I) 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

Dion Friedland v. Cap Juluca Partners I, 221 A.D.2d 284, 635 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 16,1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for modification, by providing for a right of redemption, of the order of the same court and Justice entered July 7, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the order of July 7,1993, the validity of the parties’ pledge agreement was upheld and defendant-appellant was directed to take all actions necessary to transfer ownership interest in the pledged shares to plaintiffs. The IAS Court properly refused to modify that order to direct delivery of the stock to defendant-appellant upon payment of the amounts owed (see, UCC 9-505 [2]; 9-506), since there was no evidence of a valid tender of payment of the indebtedness (see, Jamaica Sav. Bank v Sutton, 42 AD2d 856, 857), and, in fact, evidence was presented which demonstrated that defendant-appellant was incapable of doing so. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 16,1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for modification, by providing for a right of redemption, of the order of the same court and Justice entered July 7, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the order of July 7,1993, the validity of the parties’ pledge agreement was upheld and defendant-appellant was directed to take all actions necessary to transfer ownership interest in the pledged shares to plaintiffs. The IAS Court properly refused to modify that order to direct delivery of the stock to defendant-appellant upon payment of the amounts owed (see, UCC 9-505 [2]; 9-506), since there was no evidence of a valid tender of payment of the indebtedness (see, Jamaica Sav. Bank v Sutton, 42 AD2d 856, 857), and, in fact, evidence was presented which demonstrated that defendant-appellant was incapable of doing so. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 284, 635 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dion-friedland-v-cap-juluca-partners-i-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack