Mottes v. Hambrecht & Quist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mottes v. Hambrecht & Quist

126 A.D.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41746

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 611 (Mottes v. Hambrecht & Quist) 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

Mottes v. Hambrecht & Quist, 126 A.D.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action alleging a violation of the terms of a written assignment, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated September 30, 1985, as denied their motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In view of the existence of mixed questions of law and fact, Special Term properly denied the motions and cross motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action alleging a violation of the terms of a written assignment, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated September 30, 1985, as denied their motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In view of the existence of mixed questions of law and fact, Special Term properly denied the motions and cross motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mottes-v-hambrecht-quist-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack