Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Dime Savings Bank of New York FSB

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Dime Savings Bank of New York FSB

294 A.D.2d 337, 741 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839

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

DecidedMay 6, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 337 (Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Dime Savings Bank of New York FSB) 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

Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Dime Savings Bank of New York FSB, 294 A.D.2d 337, 741 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated February 9, 2001, as denied those branches of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which were to dismiss the plaintiffs first and second causes of action, alleging breach of contract and negligence, respectively.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence against it. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated February 9, 2001, as denied those branches of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which were to dismiss the plaintiffs first and second causes of action, alleging breach of contract and negligence, respectively.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence against it. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 337, 741 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawyers-fund-for-client-protection-v-dime-savings-bank-of-new-york-fsb-nyappdiv-2002.