Joseph Lipshie & Co. v. Zeiler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph Lipshie & Co. v. Zeiler

56 A.D.2d 829, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 829 (Joseph Lipshie & Co. v. Zeiler) 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

Joseph Lipshie & Co. v. Zeiler, 56 A.D.2d 829, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 22, 1976, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We think further exploration is necessary to ascertain the nature and extent of plaintiff’s services for the purpose of determining whether such services were in addition to the services which plaintiff, a firm of certified public accountants, was [830]*830rendering to defendant in the regular course of its employment and, if so, whether they were such services as are covered by subdivision 10 of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law, the Statute of Frauds subdivision relating to so-called finders, etc. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 22, 1976, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We think further exploration is necessary to ascertain the nature and extent of plaintiff’s services for the purpose of determining whether such services were in addition to the services which plaintiff, a firm of certified public accountants, was [830]*830rendering to defendant in the regular course of its employment and, if so, whether they were such services as are covered by subdivision 10 of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law, the Statute of Frauds subdivision relating to so-called finders, etc. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 829, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-lipshie-co-v-zeiler-nyappdiv-1977.