Eatman v. Lynfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eatman v. Lynfield

251 A.D.2d 537, 673 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 537 (Eatman v. Lynfield) 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

Eatman v. Lynfield, 251 A.D.2d 537, 673 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion, the defendant C. Glenn Schor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated September 12, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to whether an attorney-client , relationship existed between him and the plaintiffs, and as to his degree of involvement, if any, in the alleged fraud (see, LaManna v Cahn Wollen Co., 249 AD2d 451; Messena v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 249 AD2d 280). Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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 fraud and conversion, the defendant C. Glenn Schor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated September 12, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to whether an attorney-client , relationship existed between him and the plaintiffs, and as to his degree of involvement, if any, in the alleged fraud (see, LaManna v Cahn Wollen Co., 249 AD2d 451; Messena v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 249 AD2d 280). Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 537, 673 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eatman-v-lynfield-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack