Neildan Construction Corp. v. Angona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neildan Construction Corp. v. Angona

209 A.D.2d 389, 619 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11035

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 389 (Neildan Construction Corp. v. Angona) 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

Neildan Construction Corp. v. Angona, 209 A.D.2d 389, 619 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to quiet [390]*390title to real property, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated June 17, 1993, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The third-party defendant was entitled to rely upon the facially valid power of attorney in this case since the circumstances surrounding its presentation would not have put a reasonable person on notice that something was amiss (see, Grasso v Fiumara, 167 AD2d 510; cf., Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827). Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the third-party complaint. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to quiet [390]*390title to real property, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated June 17, 1993, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The third-party defendant was entitled to rely upon the facially valid power of attorney in this case since the circumstances surrounding its presentation would not have put a reasonable person on notice that something was amiss (see, Grasso v Fiumara, 167 AD2d 510; cf., Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827). Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the third-party complaint. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 389, 619 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neildan-construction-corp-v-angona-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack