Popp v. Rende

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Popp v. Rende

272 A.D.2d 459, 708 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 459 (Popp v. Rende) 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

Popp v. Rende, 272 A.D.2d 459, 708 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendants Lynn L. Baronti and Rende and Baronti appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 18, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first, second, and third causes of action and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There is no question of fact as to whether the conduct of the defendant Kristina M. Rende was within the ordinary course of the law firm’s business (see, Partnership Law §§ 24, 25; Clients’ Sec. Fund v Grandeau, 72 NY2d 62). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendants Lynn L. Baronti and Rende and Baronti appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 18, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first, second, and third causes of action and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There is no question of fact as to whether the conduct of the defendant Kristina M. Rende was within the ordinary course of the law firm’s business (see, Partnership Law §§ 24, 25; Clients’ Sec. Fund v Grandeau, 72 NY2d 62). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 459, 708 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popp-v-rende-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack