Robbins v. Hasan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robbins v. Hasan

214 A.D.2d 351, 625 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157

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

DecidedApril 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 351 (Robbins v. Hasan) 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

Robbins v. Hasan, 214 A.D.2d 351, 625 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 19, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In an action against an individual to recover the amount of a check he allegedly fraudulently caused his corporation to issue to plaintiffs’ assignor (see, A-1 Check Cashing Serv. v Goodman, 148 AD2d 482; see also, People v Apple Health & Sports Clubs, 80 NY2d 803, 807), issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment in favor of either side, including whether plaintiffs are holders in due course (see, Infotech Mgt. v Burrell, 143 AD2d 312), and, if not, whether the check was supported by consideration. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 19, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In an action against an individual to recover the amount of a check he allegedly fraudulently caused his corporation to issue to plaintiffs’ assignor (see, A-1 Check Cashing Serv. v Goodman, 148 AD2d 482; see also, People v Apple Health & Sports Clubs, 80 NY2d 803, 807), issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment in favor of either side, including whether plaintiffs are holders in due course (see, Infotech Mgt. v Burrell, 143 AD2d 312), and, if not, whether the check was supported by consideration. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 351, 625 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-hasan-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack