Kramer v. Danalis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kramer v. Danalis

92 A.D.3d 513, 938 N.Y.2d 428

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 513 (Kramer v. Danalis) 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

Kramer v. Danalis, 92 A.D.3d 513, 938 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The general assertions by defendant’s and Irving Bush’s accountant that, in his review of the general ledgers and banking records, he observed no financial irregularities or unfair conduct by defendant, is insufficient to demonstrate defendant’s entitlement to judgment dismissing the specific claims alleged. Thus, plaintiffs obligation to raise an issue of fact in opposition never arose. .

We note that the law of the case doctrine has no bearing on the allegations of self-dealing, which are separate from the claim resolved on the prior appeal by our finding that there was no is[514]*514sue of fact as to the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with regard to a 2002 agreement (66 AD3d 539 [2009]). We also note that discovery has not yet been completed. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The general assertions by defendant’s and Irving Bush’s accountant that, in his review of the general ledgers and banking records, he observed no financial irregularities or unfair conduct by defendant, is insufficient to demonstrate defendant’s entitlement to judgment dismissing the specific claims alleged. Thus, plaintiffs obligation to raise an issue of fact in opposition never arose. .

We note that the law of the case doctrine has no bearing on the allegations of self-dealing, which are separate from the claim resolved on the prior appeal by our finding that there was no is[514]*514sue of fact as to the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with regard to a 2002 agreement (66 AD3d 539 [2009]). We also note that discovery has not yet been completed. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 513, 938 N.Y.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-danalis-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack