Fudenberg v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fudenberg v. State

35 A.D.3d 281, 825 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 281 (Fudenberg v. State) 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

Fudenberg v. State, 35 A.D.3d 281, 825 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered August 2, 2005, which denied claimant’s motion to file a late notice of claim and granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the claim without prejudice to whatever [282]*282rights claimant may have under the Public Officers Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the existence of material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), that defendant had breached its fiduciary duty or breached a 1997 settlement agreement made in open court in Komlosi v Fudenberg (88 Civ 1792 [SD NY]), or committed fraud in connection with said agreement. Based upon the extensive record and detailed settlement process, the court properly found that the only promise made was an offer of a good-faith interview, not a promise to rehire Mr. Komlosi, and defendant fully performed its obligations by providing two bona fide interviews.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Thomas H. Scuccimarra, J.), entered August 2, 2005, which denied claimant’s motion to file a late notice of claim and granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the claim without prejudice to whatever [282]*282rights claimant may have under the Public Officers Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the existence of material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), that defendant had breached its fiduciary duty or breached a 1997 settlement agreement made in open court in Komlosi v Fudenberg (88 Civ 1792 [SD NY]), or committed fraud in connection with said agreement. Based upon the extensive record and detailed settlement process, the court properly found that the only promise made was an offer of a good-faith interview, not a promise to rehire Mr. Komlosi, and defendant fully performed its obligations by providing two bona fide interviews.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 281, 825 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fudenberg-v-state-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack