Feldman v. Esikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldman v. Esikoff

93 A.D.2d 807, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17649

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

DecidedApril 4, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 807 (Feldman v. Esikoff) 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

Feldman v. Esikoff, 93 A.D.2d 807, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover moneys due under a loan agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated March 1, 1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. In our opinion, defendant’s first affirmative defense, alleging fraud in the inducement, is sufficiently supported by defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, so as to raise an issue of fact as to whether he was induced to enter into the loan agreement by false representations made by plaintiff and his associates. While much of defendant’s affidavit is conclusory in nature, it also contains specific allegations. The general nature of many of defendant’s statements may be due to the fact that this motion was brought prior to discovery. Plaintiff may renew his motion, if he be so advised, when discovery is completed (see CPLR 3212, subd [f]). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover moneys due under a loan agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated March 1, 1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. In our opinion, defendant’s first affirmative defense, alleging fraud in the inducement, is sufficiently supported by defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, so as to raise an issue of fact as to whether he was induced to enter into the loan agreement by false representations made by plaintiff and his associates. While much of defendant’s affidavit is conclusory in nature, it also contains specific allegations. The general nature of many of defendant’s statements may be due to the fact that this motion was brought prior to discovery. Plaintiff may renew his motion, if he be so advised, when discovery is completed (see CPLR 3212, subd [f]). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 807, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldman-v-esikoff-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack