FTL Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

FTL Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank

78 A.D.2d 628, 433 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13092

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 1980·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 27, 1980, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff-respondent on the ground of res judicata and collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The inadequacy of the record, particularly the lack of reasons for the reduction of plaintiff-respondent’s claim against the shipper Interstate from $34,355.43 to $4,707.93 by the Bankruptcy Court, precludes us from determining on the merits whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be applied, as now contended by defendant-appellant. For the same reason—inadequacy of the record—we are unable to determine whether, as claimed by defendant-appellant, plaintiff-respondent has been paid in full so as to bar the present action. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 27, 1980, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff-respondent on the ground of res judicata and collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The inadequacy of the record, particularly the lack of reasons for the reduction of plaintiff-respondent’s claim against the shipper Interstate from $34,355.43 to $4,707.93 by the Bankruptcy Court, precludes us from determining on the merits whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be applied, as now contended by defendant-appellant. For the same reason—inadequacy of the record—we are unable to determine whether, as claimed by defendant-appellant, plaintiff-respondent has been paid in full so as to bar the present action. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

FTL Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 78 A.D.2d 628, 433 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

78 A.D.2d 628 (FTL Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related