Kantor v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kantor v. Bernstein

245 A.D.2d 138, 665 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13013

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 138 (Kantor v. Bernstein) 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

Kantor v. Bernstein, 245 A.D.2d 138, 665 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered December 9, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Uncontradicted evidence of the parties’ course of dealing and performance under the subject agreement warrants summary dismissal of the complaint premised on the claim that plaintiff Irene Kantor was a partner in defendant partnership. There is no objective evidence of a manifestation of an intent to be bound by the terms asserted by plaintiffs, but only their own self-serving assertions as to their subjective understanding and private intent (see, Keis Distribs. v Northern Distrib. Co., 226 AD2d 967, 969). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered December 9, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Uncontradicted evidence of the parties’ course of dealing and performance under the subject agreement warrants summary dismissal of the complaint premised on the claim that plaintiff Irene Kantor was a partner in defendant partnership. There is no objective evidence of a manifestation of an intent to be bound by the terms asserted by plaintiffs, but only their own self-serving assertions as to their subjective understanding and private intent (see, Keis Distribs. v Northern Distrib. Co., 226 AD2d 967, 969). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 138, 665 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kantor-v-bernstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack