Friedman v. Lillie Einsidler Trust No. 201

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Lillie Einsidler Trust No. 201

248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 275 (Friedman v. Lillie Einsidler Trust No. 201) 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

Friedman v. Lillie Einsidler Trust No. 201, 248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about July 10, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendants’ remaining counterclaim for unpaid rent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and should not be lightly presumed (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966). Here, plaintiffs papers did not establish his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853) and, in any event, the affidavits and documentary evidence submitted on behalf of defendants clearly raise issues of fact for trial (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about July 10, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendants’ remaining counterclaim for unpaid rent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and should not be lightly presumed (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966). Here, plaintiffs papers did not establish his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853) and, in any event, the affidavits and documentary evidence submitted on behalf of defendants clearly raise issues of fact for trial (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-lillie-einsidler-trust-no-201-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack