Finkelstein v. Itkowitz & Harwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkelstein v. Itkowitz & Harwood

28 A.D.3d 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 355

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

DecidedApril 18, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 336 (Finkelstein v. Itkowitz & Harwood) 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

Finkelstein v. Itkowitz & Harwood, 28 A.D.3d 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. De-Grasse, J.), entered March 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, previously granted as to liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The initial grant of summary judgment as to liability was premised upon the motion court’s conclusion that defendant’s contractually based defense to plaintiffs claim for additional compensation had been waived. The court, however, properly recognized on reargument that it had overlooked evidence indicating that the purported waiver had not been made by one with authority to bind defendant financially. Inasmuch as that evidence raised triable issues as to whether the claimed waiver was in fact binding on defendant, summary judgment was properly denied (see Navillus Tile v Turner Constr. Co., 2 AD3d 209 [2003]; Frank v Katz, 145 AD2d 597 [1989]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. De-Grasse, J.), entered March 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, previously granted as to liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The initial grant of summary judgment as to liability was premised upon the motion court’s conclusion that defendant’s contractually based defense to plaintiffs claim for additional compensation had been waived. The court, however, properly recognized on reargument that it had overlooked evidence indicating that the purported waiver had not been made by one with authority to bind defendant financially. Inasmuch as that evidence raised triable issues as to whether the claimed waiver was in fact binding on defendant, summary judgment was properly denied (see Navillus Tile v Turner Constr. Co., 2 AD3d 209 [2003]; Frank v Katz, 145 AD2d 597 [1989]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkelstein-v-itkowitz-harwood-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack