Lieber v. TBS Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieber v. TBS Group, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 272, 638 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1056

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 272 (Lieber v. TBS Group, Inc.) 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

Lieber v. TBS Group, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 272, 638 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 21, 1994, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 5,1994, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously af[273]*273firmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact that she justifiably relied upon the alleged oral promise to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company in the future, given the merger clauses in the subject written agreements (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 320-321), and plaintiff’s admission that defendants expressly declined to promise future investment in such agreements (see, Deligiannis v Pepsico, Inc., 757 F Supp 241, 255). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 21, 1994, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 5,1994, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously af[273]*273firmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact that she justifiably relied upon the alleged oral promise to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company in the future, given the merger clauses in the subject written agreements (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 320-321), and plaintiff’s admission that defendants expressly declined to promise future investment in such agreements (see, Deligiannis v Pepsico, Inc., 757 F Supp 241, 255). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 272, 638 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieber-v-tbs-group-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack