Liffiton v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liffiton v. Santiago

134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51124

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 924 (Liffiton v. Santiago) 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

Liffiton v. Santiago, 134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiff seeks rescission of an agreement to sell corporate stock to the defendant. Plaintiff has alleged that he owned the stock in question and that he sold it to the defendant under duress because defendant threatened him with criminal prosecution. He also alleged that at the time of the stock transfer for $500, the equity in the corporation exceeded $600,000. The affidavit submitted in response to the motion was sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Gravenhorst v Zimmerman, 236 NY 22, 36-39). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiff seeks rescission of an agreement to sell corporate stock to the defendant. Plaintiff has alleged that he owned the stock in question and that he sold it to the defendant under duress because defendant threatened him with criminal prosecution. He also alleged that at the time of the stock transfer for $500, the equity in the corporation exceeded $600,000. The affidavit submitted in response to the motion was sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Gravenhorst v Zimmerman, 236 NY 22, 36-39). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 924, 522 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liffiton-v-santiago-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack