Niego v. Braun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niego v. Braun

212 A.D.2d 445, 623 N.Y.S.2d 109

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 445 (Niego v. Braun) 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

Niego v. Braun, 212 A.D.2d 445, 623 N.Y.S.2d 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about May 13, 1994, granting summary judgment to plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim for prima facie tort, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As alleged in the complaint and conceded by defendant in his answer and counterclaims, a contractual relationship was established between the parties and there exists a dispute over monies transferred from plaintiff to defendant in connection with that relationship. Thus, the motion court properly found that defendant’s prima facie tort counterclaim cannot stand because both the complaint and answering papers establish that plaintiff’s sole motive in bringing this action was not " 'disinterested malevolence’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about May 13, 1994, granting summary judgment to plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim for prima facie tort, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As alleged in the complaint and conceded by defendant in his answer and counterclaims, a contractual relationship was established between the parties and there exists a dispute over monies transferred from plaintiff to defendant in connection with that relationship. Thus, the motion court properly found that defendant’s prima facie tort counterclaim cannot stand because both the complaint and answering papers establish that plaintiff’s sole motive in bringing this action was not " 'disinterested malevolence’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 445, 623 N.Y.S.2d 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niego-v-braun-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack