Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman

233 A.D.2d 275, 650 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 275 (Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman) 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

Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman, 233 A.D.2d 275, 650 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about June 25, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for account stated and to dismiss defendant client’s counterclaims for malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s counterclaim alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, raises questions of credibility that are not suscep[276]*276tibie to summary disposition (Dershowitz & Eiger v Helmsley, 219 AD2d 497), and that preclude summary judgment on the cause of action for account stated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Tom and Andrias, JJ. '

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about June 25, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for account stated and to dismiss defendant client’s counterclaims for malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s counterclaim alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, raises questions of credibility that are not suscep[276]*276tibie to summary disposition (Dershowitz & Eiger v Helmsley, 219 AD2d 497), and that preclude summary judgment on the cause of action for account stated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Tom and Andrias, JJ. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 275, 650 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazer-gottlieb-v-nachman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack