Isler v. Ticor Title Guarantee Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isler v. Ticor Title Guarantee Co.

191 A.D.2d 282, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 282 (Isler v. Ticor Title Guarantee 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

Isler v. Ticor Title Guarantee Co., 191 A.D.2d 282, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered April 17, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is clear that plaintiffs only claim is that defendants should be charged with the allegedly wrongful action of the representatives of the estate. Such a claim must fail since no action for conspiracy lies for lawful acts performed in a lawful manner merely because they have resulted in damage (20 NY Jur 2d, Conspiracy — Civil Aspects, §2, at 5, citing Cooke v Dodge, 164 Misc 78, mod 254 App Div 808). Although alleged, there is no showing of fraud. Nor has plaintiff established negligence. As defendants properly argue, they owed no duty to plaintiff. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch. 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 April 17, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is clear that plaintiffs only claim is that defendants should be charged with the allegedly wrongful action of the representatives of the estate. Such a claim must fail since no action for conspiracy lies for lawful acts performed in a lawful manner merely because they have resulted in damage (20 NY Jur 2d, Conspiracy — Civil Aspects, §2, at 5, citing Cooke v Dodge, 164 Misc 78, mod 254 App Div 808). Although alleged, there is no showing of fraud. Nor has plaintiff established negligence. As defendants properly argue, they owed no duty to plaintiff. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 282, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isler-v-ticor-title-guarantee-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack