Knopf v. Wolkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knopf v. Wolkoff

155 A.D.2d 257

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 257 (Knopf v. Wolkoff) 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

Knopf v. Wolkoff, 155 A.D.2d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Wright, J.), entered on December 13, 1988, which dismissed the complaint, following a bench trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs and with disbursements, for the reasons stated by Wright, J.

In this action for, inter alla, rescission of an agreement terminating a joint venture, plaintiffs alleged both fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants in connection with its execution.

After a bifurcated bench trial on liability, Trial Term dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs’ contention that they had been fraudulently induced into executing the termination agreement was not substantiated.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is no basis for this court to interfere with Trial Term’s determination concerning what were, in essence, credibility issues. (See, 829 Seventh Ave. Co. v Reider, 111 AD2d 670, 672 [1st Dept 1985].) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Wright, J.), entered on December 13, 1988, which dismissed the complaint, following a bench trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs and with disbursements, for the reasons stated by Wright, J.

In this action for, inter alla, rescission of an agreement terminating a joint venture, plaintiffs alleged both fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants in connection with its execution.

After a bifurcated bench trial on liability, Trial Term dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs’ contention that they had been fraudulently induced into executing the termination agreement was not substantiated.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is no basis for this court to interfere with Trial Term’s determination concerning what were, in essence, credibility issues. (See, 829 Seventh Ave. Co. v Reider, 111 AD2d 670, 672 [1st Dept 1985].) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knopf-v-wolkoff-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack