Meyersohn v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyersohn v. Bloom

288 A.D.2d 36, 733 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10358

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 36 (Meyersohn v. Bloom) 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

Meyersohn v. Bloom, 288 A.D.2d 36, 733 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 6, 1999, which granted plaintiffs’, motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In accordance with the leave granted on a prior appeal (259 AD2d 432), plaintiff served an amended complaint seeking to recover against defendant on the theory of promissory estoppel. Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff upon a [37]*37showing of a clear and unambiguous promise by defendant to personally repay the amount that plaintiffs placed with defendant’s now defunct investment firm, plaintiffs’ detrimental reliance on that promise in forbearing from legal action against defendant’s firm, and financial loss (see, id.). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 6, 1999, which granted plaintiffs’, motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In accordance with the leave granted on a prior appeal (259 AD2d 432), plaintiff served an amended complaint seeking to recover against defendant on the theory of promissory estoppel. Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff upon a [37]*37showing of a clear and unambiguous promise by defendant to personally repay the amount that plaintiffs placed with defendant’s now defunct investment firm, plaintiffs’ detrimental reliance on that promise in forbearing from legal action against defendant’s firm, and financial loss (see, id.). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 36, 733 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyersohn-v-bloom-nyappdiv-2001.