Intercontinental Fur Corp. v. Goldstone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Intercontinental Fur Corp. v. Goldstone

30 A.D.2d 653, 291 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759

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

DecidedJune 13, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 653 (Intercontinental Fur Corp. v. Goldstone) 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

Intercontinental Fur Corp. v. Goldstone, 30 A.D.2d 653, 291 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for like relief, and the judgment thereon entered unanimously modified, on the law, the judgment vacated, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant; and the motions for summary judgment denied. The composition of plaintiff’s claim against defendant’s client does not serve to release defendant from the tort claim predicated on his certification of a false financial statement of his client. (New York Trust Co. v. Beairsto, 42 Misc 2d 419, affd. 20 A D 2d 851.) The contract obligation of the client to the plaintiff is separate and apart from defendant’s tort liability to the plaintiff. Triable issues exist, among others, as to whether plaintiff did in fact extend credit to debtor in reliance on the statement, the amount of credit extended thereon, and the damages sustained by plaintiff. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for like relief, and the judgment thereon entered unanimously modified, on the law, the judgment vacated, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant; and the motions for summary judgment denied. The composition of plaintiff’s claim against defendant’s client does not serve to release defendant from the tort claim predicated on his certification of a false financial statement of his client. (New York Trust Co. v. Beairsto, 42 Misc 2d 419, affd. 20 A D 2d 851.) The contract obligation of the client to the plaintiff is separate and apart from defendant’s tort liability to the plaintiff. Triable issues exist, among others, as to whether plaintiff did in fact extend credit to debtor in reliance on the statement, the amount of credit extended thereon, and the damages sustained by plaintiff. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 653, 291 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intercontinental-fur-corp-v-goldstone-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack