I. Appel Corp. v. Mahoney Cohen & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

I. Appel Corp. v. Mahoney Cohen & Co.

6 A.D.3d 279, 774 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedApril 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 279 (I. Appel Corp. v. Mahoney Cohen & Co.) 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

I. Appel Corp. v. Mahoney Cohen & Co., 6 A.D.3d 279, 774 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court realistically applied the flexible doctrine of issue preclusion (see Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 40 [2003]; Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]) in barring all of plaintiffs’ claims, based on the arbitrators’ finding that plaintiff Feinberg could not have reasonably relied on the financial statements and other financial documents produced by defendants.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court realistically applied the flexible doctrine of issue preclusion (see Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 40 [2003]; Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]) in barring all of plaintiffs’ claims, based on the arbitrators’ finding that plaintiff Feinberg could not have reasonably relied on the financial statements and other financial documents produced by defendants.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 279, 774 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-appel-corp-v-mahoney-cohen-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack