Schorr v. Steiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schorr v. Steiner

63 A.D.3d 449, 880 N.Y.S.2d 280

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

DecidedJune 4, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 449 (Schorr v. Steiner) 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

Schorr v. Steiner, 63 A.D.3d 449, 880 N.Y.S.2d 280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 27, 2008, which granted defendant Steiner’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, and the third amended complaint reinstated.

Order, same court (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 24, 2008, which denied defendant Persaud’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Justice Cahn’s affirmed ruling in another action (25 AD3d 361 [2006]), that Dr. Silbermann owned the clinic that Star Meth and the Schorrs managed, did not necessarily determine entitlement to the revenues remaining after payment of Dr. Silbermann’s compensation and the clinic expenses (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]). In this light, the affidavit of Seymour Schorr raised an issue of fact whether payment of salaries to fictitious employees as part of defendants’ embezzlement scheme injured Star Meth. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 27, 2008, which granted defendant Steiner’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, and the third amended complaint reinstated.

Order, same court (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 24, 2008, which denied defendant Persaud’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Justice Cahn’s affirmed ruling in another action (25 AD3d 361 [2006]), that Dr. Silbermann owned the clinic that Star Meth and the Schorrs managed, did not necessarily determine entitlement to the revenues remaining after payment of Dr. Silbermann’s compensation and the clinic expenses (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]). In this light, the affidavit of Seymour Schorr raised an issue of fact whether payment of salaries to fictitious employees as part of defendants’ embezzlement scheme injured Star Meth. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 449, 880 N.Y.S.2d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schorr-v-steiner-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack