Remington Investments, Inc. v. Dempster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Remington Investments, Inc. v. Dempster

260 A.D.2d 360, 686 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3640

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 360 (Remington Investments, Inc. v. Dempster) 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

Remington Investments, Inc. v. Dempster, 260 A.D.2d 360, 686 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to collect on a note, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated January 20, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[361]*361Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, as issues of fact remain for trial (see, Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v McFarland, 33 F3d 532; Erbafina v Federal Deposit Ins. Co., 855 F Supp 9; Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v Vernon Real Estate Invs., 798 F Supp 1009; Riverside Park Realty Co. v Federal Deposit Ins. Co., 465 F Supp 305). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to collect on a note, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated January 20, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[361]*361Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, as issues of fact remain for trial (see, Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v McFarland, 33 F3d 532; Erbafina v Federal Deposit Ins. Co., 855 F Supp 9; Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v Vernon Real Estate Invs., 798 F Supp 1009; Riverside Park Realty Co. v Federal Deposit Ins. Co., 465 F Supp 305). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 360, 686 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remington-investments-inc-v-dempster-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack