Palmer v. Trachtenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Trachtenberg

268 A.D.2d 304, 700 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 304 (Palmer v. Trachtenberg) 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

Palmer v. Trachtenberg, 268 A.D.2d 304, 700 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which, in an action by plaintiffs investors against defendant escrow agents for return of money deposited with defendants allegedly pursuant to a subscription agreement, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, issues of fact remain as to whether they deposited the money with defendants pursuant to the subscription agreement, which is ambiguous as to prohibitions upon the disbursement of subscription funds. The motion for summary judgment was also properly denied given outstanding depositions of defendants (CPLR 3212 [f]). We note the inadmissibility of the affirmation submitted on defendants’ behalf (CPLR 2106), and defendants’ improper use of plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts without complying with CPLR 3116 (a). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which, in an action by plaintiffs investors against defendant escrow agents for return of money deposited with defendants allegedly pursuant to a subscription agreement, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, issues of fact remain as to whether they deposited the money with defendants pursuant to the subscription agreement, which is ambiguous as to prohibitions upon the disbursement of subscription funds. The motion for summary judgment was also properly denied given outstanding depositions of defendants (CPLR 3212 [f]). We note the inadmissibility of the affirmation submitted on defendants’ behalf (CPLR 2106), and defendants’ improper use of plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts without complying with CPLR 3116 (a). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 304, 700 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-trachtenberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack