Ember v. Seidman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ember v. Seidman

188 A.D.2d 309, 590 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13660

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 309 (Ember v. Seidman) 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

Ember v. Seidman, 188 A.D.2d 309, 590 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 25, 1992 which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the amount of $330,000 and to strike defendants’ affirmative defense of contributory negligence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Triable issues of fact exist, including but not limited to whether defendant Tonelson selected the date on which plaintiff Norman Ember was to receive payment of the sale pro[310]*310ceeds and the possible advice of prior accountants concerning the effects of the alternative minimum tax. The court properly directed the parties to proceed with discovery toward this end. Nor should this Court consider theories of liability not presented in the first instance (Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, lv denied 78 NY2d 856). Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 25, 1992 which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the amount of $330,000 and to strike defendants’ affirmative defense of contributory negligence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Triable issues of fact exist, including but not limited to whether defendant Tonelson selected the date on which plaintiff Norman Ember was to receive payment of the sale pro[310]*310ceeds and the possible advice of prior accountants concerning the effects of the alternative minimum tax. The court properly directed the parties to proceed with discovery toward this end. Nor should this Court consider theories of liability not presented in the first instance (Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, lv denied 78 NY2d 856). Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 309, 590 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ember-v-seidman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack