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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

225 A.D.2d 369 (J & H Stolow, Inc. v. Becker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related