Hite v. Hite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hite v. Hite

167 A.D.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14541

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment. We agree. Accepting, as we must for the purposes of this motion, the nonmoving party’s evidence as true (see, Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845), summary judgment must be denied because there is at least arguably an issue of fact regarding the existence of the partnership (see, Missan v Schoenfeld, 95 AD2d 198). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J.—dissolution of partnership.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment. We agree. Accepting, as we must for the purposes of this motion, the nonmoving party’s evidence as true (see, Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845), summary judgment must be denied because there is at least arguably an issue of fact regarding the existence of the partnership (see, Missan v Schoenfeld, 95 AD2d 198). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J.—dissolution of partnership.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Hite v. Hite, 167 A.D.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

167 A.D.2d 953 (Hite v. Hite) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related