Harmon Associates v. Primerica Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harmon Associates v. Primerica Corp.

184 A.D.2d 374

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

DecidedJune 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 374 (Harmon Associates v. Primerica Corp.) 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

Harmon Associates v. Primerica Corp., 184 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 12, 1992, which, inter alia, denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their motion to amend their answer to assert counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As is clear from the evidence, material questions of fact exist regarding plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action and breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing those causes of action was properly denied (see, e.g., Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57). In addition, we find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances in denying defendants’ motion to amend their answer to assert counterclaims on the ground of laches (see, Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, 781, affd 47 NY2d 878). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 12, 1992, which, inter alia, denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their motion to amend their answer to assert counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As is clear from the evidence, material questions of fact exist regarding plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action and breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing those causes of action was properly denied (see, e.g., Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57). In addition, we find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances in denying defendants’ motion to amend their answer to assert counterclaims on the ground of laches (see, Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, 781, affd 47 NY2d 878). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-associates-v-primerica-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack