Molinoff v. Kates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molinoff v. Kates

302 A.D.2d 570, 755 N.Y.S.2d 633

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 570 (Molinoff v. Kates) 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

Molinoff v. Kates, 302 A.D.2d 570, 755 N.Y.S.2d 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated October 15, 2001, as, after a nonjury trial, in effect, dismissed his second cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the trial court properly dismissed his cause of action alleging fraud upon finding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant fraudulently induced him to discount the principal balance due on the loan at issue (see Fraga v Toshiba Am. Med. Sys., 298 AD2d 427 [2002]; Abrahami v UPC Constr. Co., 224 AD2d 231 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller 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 fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated October 15, 2001, as, after a nonjury trial, in effect, dismissed his second cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the trial court properly dismissed his cause of action alleging fraud upon finding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant fraudulently induced him to discount the principal balance due on the loan at issue (see Fraga v Toshiba Am. Med. Sys., 298 AD2d 427 [2002]; Abrahami v UPC Constr. Co., 224 AD2d 231 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 570, 755 N.Y.S.2d 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molinoff-v-kates-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack