Flatbush Pacific Development Corp. v. Markowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flatbush Pacific Development Corp. v. Markowitz

50 A.D.3d 294, 853 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedApril 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 294 (Flatbush Pacific Development Corp. v. Markowitz) 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

Flatbush Pacific Development Corp. v. Markowitz, 50 A.D.3d 294, 853 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 10, 2007, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even if there were an escrow agreement, plaintiffs allegation that it was the intended beneficiary of such agreement was conclusory (see e.g. Peabody v Northgate Ford, Inc., 16 AD3d 879, 881 [2005]; Sterritt v Heins Equip. Co., 114 AD2d 616 [1985]). The complaint thus failed to state a cause of action against either the alleged escrow agent, who flatly denied ever holding funds in escrow, or the attorney who represented one of the parties at the closing.

We decline to impose sanctions against plaintiff. Concur— Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 10, 2007, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even if there were an escrow agreement, plaintiffs allegation that it was the intended beneficiary of such agreement was conclusory (see e.g. Peabody v Northgate Ford, Inc., 16 AD3d 879, 881 [2005]; Sterritt v Heins Equip. Co., 114 AD2d 616 [1985]). The complaint thus failed to state a cause of action against either the alleged escrow agent, who flatly denied ever holding funds in escrow, or the attorney who represented one of the parties at the closing.

We decline to impose sanctions against plaintiff. Concur— Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 294, 853 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flatbush-pacific-development-corp-v-markowitz-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack