Rea v. Rea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rea v. Rea

13 A.D.3d 511, 786 N.Y.S.2d 311, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15586

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 511 (Rea v. Rea) 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

Rea v. Rea, 13 A.D.3d 511, 786 N.Y.S.2d 311, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter aha, for an accounting, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated December 15, 2003, as, upon reargument, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which was for return of principal held by the defendant in the amount of $2,586.28, plus interest of 9% per annum from the date of service of process upon the defendant.

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

The defendant was estopped from claiming that certain distributions to the plaintiff were return of principal where the defendant concedely represented to the plaintiff that the distributions were interest income and the plaintiff relied upon such representations (see Bogoni v Friedlander, 197 AD2d 281, 293 [1994]; cf. Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v Foster, 71 NY2d 359, 368-369 [1988]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter aha, for an accounting, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated December 15, 2003, as, upon reargument, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which was for return of principal held by the defendant in the amount of $2,586.28, plus interest of 9% per annum from the date of service of process upon the defendant.

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

The defendant was estopped from claiming that certain distributions to the plaintiff were return of principal where the defendant concedely represented to the plaintiff that the distributions were interest income and the plaintiff relied upon such representations (see Bogoni v Friedlander, 197 AD2d 281, 293 [1994]; cf. Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v Foster, 71 NY2d 359, 368-369 [1988]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 511, 786 N.Y.S.2d 311, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rea-v-rea-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack