Pitts v. Passero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pitts v. Passero

41 A.D.2d 585, 340 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 585 (Pitts v. Passero) 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

Pitts v. Passero, 41 A.D.2d 585, 340 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm- the judgment on the ground that, upon all the proof, the court, as trier of the facts, found that there was no recklessness on the part of defendant sufficient to support an inference of fraud, and we cannot say that the evidence preponderated so greatly in favor of the plaintiff as to establish that this finding for the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 529, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829), In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the question whether the claim of fraud was barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term dismissing complaint in action for damages, based on financial statement.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm- the judgment on the ground that, upon all the proof, the court, as trier of the facts, found that there was no recklessness on the part of defendant sufficient to support an inference of fraud, and we cannot say that the evidence preponderated so greatly in favor of the plaintiff as to establish that this finding for the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 529, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829), In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the question whether the claim of fraud was barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term dismissing complaint in action for damages, based on financial statement.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 585, 340 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-passero-nyappdiv-1973.