J & H Stolow, Inc. v. Becker

225 A.D.2d 369, 639 N.Y.2d 25, 639 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 12, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 369 (J & H Stolow, Inc. v. Becker) 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
J & H Stolow, Inc. v. Becker, 225 A.D.2d 369, 639 N.Y.2d 25, 639 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Plaintiffs’ attempt to hold their creditor’s attorneys liable for fraud for having sent them demand letters and then commencing an action on the creditor’s behalf to recover a loan that plaintiffs allege had been extended and was not in default, was properly rejected for failure to raise a bona fide issue (see, Assing v United Rubber Supply Co., 126 AD2d 590) of justifiable reliance (see, Wilsen Assocs. Real Estate Corp. v Pizilly, 204 AD2d 777, 778, citing, inter alia, Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 407). Concur — Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 369, 639 N.Y.2d 25, 639 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-h-stolow-inc-v-becker-nyappdiv-1996.