Fox v. Skolnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Skolnick

289 A.D.2d 87, 734 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 87 (Fox v. Skolnick) 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

Fox v. Skolnick, 289 A.D.2d 87, 734 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [88]*88(Robert Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2000, which insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this Court, unlike the court at nisi prius, is not bound by the doctrine of law of the case, where the decedent and defendant arguably had a fiduciary relationship with each other, issues of credibility are presented as to the parties’ dealings, the decedent’s allegedly diminished capacity and his reliance upon defendant, which cannot be resolved on the present record. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [88]*88(Robert Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2000, which insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this Court, unlike the court at nisi prius, is not bound by the doctrine of law of the case, where the decedent and defendant arguably had a fiduciary relationship with each other, issues of credibility are presented as to the parties’ dealings, the decedent’s allegedly diminished capacity and his reliance upon defendant, which cannot be resolved on the present record. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 87, 734 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-skolnick-nyappdiv-2001.