Madrasatul-Watania, Inc. v. Halperin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madrasatul-Watania, Inc. v. Halperin

88 A.D.2d 503, 449 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16626

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

DecidedMay 4, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 503 (Madrasatul-Watania, Inc. v. Halperin) 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

Madrasatul-Watania, Inc. v. Halperin, 88 A.D.2d 503, 449 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ryp, J.), entered November 25, 1980, which, inter alia, denied defendant Halperin’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him, modified, on the law, by granting defendant Halperin’s motion to dismiss, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Defendant Halperin represented the seller of the real property under discussion. In representing the seller, Halperin was under no duty to explain the terms of (i) the contract of sale and (ii) the letter agreement to the plaintiffs buyers. The latter should have sought appropriate advice from their attorney, defendant Simons. In the absence of any proof that Halperin made false statements to the plaintiffs or otherwise defrauded them, the action should be dismissed as against him. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Markewich and Milonas, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ryp, J.), entered November 25, 1980, which, inter alia, denied defendant Halperin’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him, modified, on the law, by granting defendant Halperin’s motion to dismiss, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Defendant Halperin represented the seller of the real property under discussion. In representing the seller, Halperin was under no duty to explain the terms of (i) the contract of sale and (ii) the letter agreement to the plaintiffs buyers. The latter should have sought appropriate advice from their attorney, defendant Simons. In the absence of any proof that Halperin made false statements to the plaintiffs or otherwise defrauded them, the action should be dismissed as against him. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Markewich and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 503, 449 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madrasatul-watania-inc-v-halperin-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack