ITM Enterprises, Inc. v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ITM Enterprises, Inc. v. Bank of New York

302 A.D.2d 361, 753 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 361 (ITM Enterprises, Inc. v. Bank of New York) 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

ITM Enterprises, Inc. v. Bank of New York, 302 A.D.2d 361, 753 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover funds pursuant to a letter of credit, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 2, 2001, which denied its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs second cause of action. However, the appeal has been rendered academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated February 6, 2001 (see ITM Enters. v Bank of N.Y., 302 AD2d 359 [decided herewith]). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover funds pursuant to a letter of credit, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 2, 2001, which denied its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs second cause of action. However, the appeal has been rendered academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated February 6, 2001 (see ITM Enters. v Bank of N.Y., 302 AD2d 359 [decided herewith]). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 361, 753 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/itm-enterprises-inc-v-bank-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack