Silberstein v. First Wall Street Capital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silberstein v. First Wall Street Capital Corp.

128 A.D.2d 516, 512 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44209

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 516 (Silberstein v. First Wall Street Capital Corp.) 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

Silberstein v. First Wall Street Capital Corp., 128 A.D.2d 516, 512 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the third-party defendant Gee-Bee Construction Corp. (hereinafter Gee-Bee) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 14, 1985, which granted the defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Gee-Bee’s counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Gee-Bee, by its counterclaim, claims that it is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of litigation because the defendants and third-party plaintiffs instituted the action against it in bad faith.

Gee-Bee makes no claim that there is any statute, court rule or agreement between the parties that would afford it the relief it seeks. Absent such claim, there is no authority to grant Gee-Bee attorney’s fees or costs of litigation, and the counterclaim fails to set forth a cause of action (Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the third-party defendant Gee-Bee Construction Corp. (hereinafter Gee-Bee) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 14, 1985, which granted the defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Gee-Bee’s counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Gee-Bee, by its counterclaim, claims that it is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of litigation because the defendants and third-party plaintiffs instituted the action against it in bad faith.

Gee-Bee makes no claim that there is any statute, court rule or agreement between the parties that would afford it the relief it seeks. Absent such claim, there is no authority to grant Gee-Bee attorney’s fees or costs of litigation, and the counterclaim fails to set forth a cause of action (Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 516, 512 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silberstein-v-first-wall-street-capital-corp-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack