Khan Noorpuri v. Hypovereins Bank, A.G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khan Noorpuri v. Hypovereins Bank, A.G.

300 A.D.2d 259, 751 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13389

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 259 (Khan Noorpuri v. Hypovereins Bank, A.G.) 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

Khan Noorpuri v. Hypovereins Bank, A.G., 300 A.D.2d 259, 751 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 13, 2001, in an action for breach of oral agreements to pay bonuses, dismissing the complaint after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 9, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The trial court’s finding that the oral agreements alleged were never made is supported by a fair interpretation of evidence turning almost entirely on witness credibility, and should not be disturbed (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). The documentary evidence on which plaintiff relies is either ambiguous, requiring interpretation also turning on credibility, or, although admitted into evidence in this nonjury trial, was properly discounted as generated in the course of settlement discussions (CPLR 4547). The trial court also made the requisite “essential” findings of fact (CPLR 4213 [b]), namely, that the agreements alleged were never made, and it did not improvidently exercise its discretion in bifurcating the trial and cutting off discovery since the discovery sought related to damages only and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that liability and damages were inextricably intertwined. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 13, 2001, in an action for breach of oral agreements to pay bonuses, dismissing the complaint after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 9, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The trial court’s finding that the oral agreements alleged were never made is supported by a fair interpretation of evidence turning almost entirely on witness credibility, and should not be disturbed (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). The documentary evidence on which plaintiff relies is either ambiguous, requiring interpretation also turning on credibility, or, although admitted into evidence in this nonjury trial, was properly discounted as generated in the course of settlement discussions (CPLR 4547). The trial court also made the requisite “essential” findings of fact (CPLR 4213 [b]), namely, that the agreements alleged were never made, and it did not improvidently exercise its discretion in bifurcating the trial and cutting off discovery since the discovery sought related to damages only and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that liability and damages were inextricably intertwined. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 259, 751 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khan-noorpuri-v-hypovereins-bank-ag-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack