Rapid Trading Co. v. M&A Wholesale Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rapid Trading Co. v. M&A Wholesale Distributors, Inc.

122 A.D.2d 787, 505 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59301

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 787 (Rapid Trading Co. v. M&A Wholesale Distributors, Inc.) 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

Rapid Trading Co. v. M&A Wholesale Distributors, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 787, 505 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendant Alan Fishel appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Jiudice, J.), dated April 18, 1985, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment as against him and denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant Fishel failed to raise any triable issues of fact, by proof in evidentiary form, as to his personal liability to the plaintiff or as to the corporate defendant’s liability to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered to it. Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as it is appealed from (see, Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendant Alan Fishel appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Jiudice, J.), dated April 18, 1985, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment as against him and denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant Fishel failed to raise any triable issues of fact, by proof in evidentiary form, as to his personal liability to the plaintiff or as to the corporate defendant’s liability to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered to it. Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as it is appealed from (see, Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 787, 505 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapid-trading-co-v-ma-wholesale-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack