Fischer v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischer v. Levy

260 A.D.2d 291, 689 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391

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

DecidedApril 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 291 (Fischer v. Levy) 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

Fischer v. Levy, 260 A.D.2d 291, 689 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 29, 1998, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and, upon an apparent conversion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), granted plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action for an accounting, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[292]*292As held by Supreme Court, defendant is collaterally estopped by the order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered May 17, 1988 in the matter entitled Schütz v Abraham Kamber and Co., from denying that decedent Joseph G. Blum was trustee of that portion of the Haimes Trust which holds two thirds of two and one half percent of the Abraham Kamber and Company limited partnership, of which defendant is the general partner. Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is no question of fact that he is the successor in interest to Blum in his capacity as trustee. Since it is the trust itself that has always, and continues to, hold the limited partnership, plaintiff is entitled, in his capacity as trustee, to an accounting, and he was therefore properly awarded summary judgment on his first cause of action seeking that relief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Williams and Tom, 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 September 29, 1998, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and, upon an apparent conversion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), granted plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action for an accounting, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[292]*292As held by Supreme Court, defendant is collaterally estopped by the order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered May 17, 1988 in the matter entitled Schütz v Abraham Kamber and Co., from denying that decedent Joseph G. Blum was trustee of that portion of the Haimes Trust which holds two thirds of two and one half percent of the Abraham Kamber and Company limited partnership, of which defendant is the general partner. Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is no question of fact that he is the successor in interest to Blum in his capacity as trustee. Since it is the trust itself that has always, and continues to, hold the limited partnership, plaintiff is entitled, in his capacity as trustee, to an accounting, and he was therefore properly awarded summary judgment on his first cause of action seeking that relief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 291, 689 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-levy-nyappdiv-1999.