Geddes v. Zeiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geddes v. Zeiderman

228 A.D.2d 393, 644 N.Y.2d 729, 644 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7462

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

DecidedJune 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 393 (Geddes v. Zeiderman) 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

Geddes v. Zeiderman, 228 A.D.2d 393, 644 N.Y.2d 729, 644 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff alleges an arrangement in which investment decisions by her former financial manager, a relationship involving fiduciary considerations, were made chiefly on the basis of the remuneration such investments would produce for defendants, to share among themselves. If these allegations are true, the details of that arrangement would be known only to defendants. Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the motion court to conclude that special circumstances warranted granting plaintiff priority (see, Halitzer v Ginsberg, 80 AD2d 771).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Plaintiff alleges an arrangement in which investment decisions by her former financial manager, a relationship involving fiduciary considerations, were made chiefly on the basis of the remuneration such investments would produce for defendants, to share among themselves. If these allegations are true, the details of that arrangement would be known only to defendants. Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the motion court to conclude that special circumstances warranted granting plaintiff priority (see, Halitzer v Ginsberg, 80 AD2d 771).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 393, 644 N.Y.2d 729, 644 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geddes-v-zeiderman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack