Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP v. Coleman

306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7223

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

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 167 (Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP v. Coleman) 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

Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP v. Coleman, 306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered November 29, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for legal fees and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim for malpractice and denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that the factual dispute between the parties presented issues of credibility not appropriate for summary disposition (see Glazer & Gottlieb v Nachman, 233 AD2d 275 [1996]). We note that plaintiff’s argument for summary judgment rests largely upon attacks on defendant’s credibility.

Under the circumstances, the denial of sanctions was not improvident. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered November 29, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for legal fees and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim for malpractice and denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that the factual dispute between the parties presented issues of credibility not appropriate for summary disposition (see Glazer & Gottlieb v Nachman, 233 AD2d 275 [1996]). We note that plaintiff’s argument for summary judgment rests largely upon attacks on defendant’s credibility.

Under the circumstances, the denial of sanctions was not improvident. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-dickler-kent-goldstein-wood-llp-v-coleman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack