Salzinger v. Weinstock Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salzinger v. Weinstock Bros.

284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6075

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 387 (Salzinger v. Weinstock Bros.) 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

Salzinger v. Weinstock Bros., 284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Al-port, J.), dated February 25, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court erroneously concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment violated the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions (see, Broer v Smith, 240 AD2d 528). However, the court properly denied the motion because there are triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the plaintiff Seymour Salzinger breached a restrictive covenant.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Al-port, J.), dated February 25, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court erroneously concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment violated the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions (see, Broer v Smith, 240 AD2d 528). However, the court properly denied the motion because there are triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the plaintiff Seymour Salzinger breached a restrictive covenant.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salzinger-v-weinstock-bros-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack