Romeo v. Schmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romeo v. Schmidt

244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12183

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketAppeal No. 3

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 861 (Romeo v. Schmidt) 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

Romeo v. Schmidt, 244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting that portion of defendants’ cross motion seeking to enjoin disposition of the remaining escrow funds held by plaintiffs and directing disclosure of records pertaining to the current status of the escrow account and any and all assets therein. Because there are triable issues of fact regarding the management of the escrow funds, the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by plaintiffs and the validity of the claimed assignment, the court properly denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment on their second and third counterclaims. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onon[862]*862daga County, Hurlbutt, J.—Disclosure.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting that portion of defendants’ cross motion seeking to enjoin disposition of the remaining escrow funds held by plaintiffs and directing disclosure of records pertaining to the current status of the escrow account and any and all assets therein. Because there are triable issues of fact regarding the management of the escrow funds, the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by plaintiffs and the validity of the claimed assignment, the court properly denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment on their second and third counterclaims. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onon[862]*862daga County, Hurlbutt, J.—Disclosure.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romeo-v-schmidt-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack