South Star, Inc. v. Afshar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

South Star, Inc. v. Afshar

172 A.D.2d 396, 570 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997

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

DecidedApril 25, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 396 (South Star, Inc. v. Afshar) 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

South Star, Inc. v. Afshar, 172 A.D.2d 396, 570 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 7, 1990 which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of an issue of fact. (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231.) The affidavit of Powsner, plaintiff’s assignor, president and counsel, together with the uncontraverted letter dated October 11, 1988, from the defendant’s other attorney raises a triable issue with respect to the terms under which the release, relied upon by the defendant, was to be given effect. Further discovery, particularly the examination of the defendant’s counsel from Virginia, is necessary to determine the efficacy of the release under the circumstances. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 7, 1990 which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of an issue of fact. (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231.) The affidavit of Powsner, plaintiff’s assignor, president and counsel, together with the uncontraverted letter dated October 11, 1988, from the defendant’s other attorney raises a triable issue with respect to the terms under which the release, relied upon by the defendant, was to be given effect. Further discovery, particularly the examination of the defendant’s counsel from Virginia, is necessary to determine the efficacy of the release under the circumstances. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 396, 570 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-star-inc-v-afshar-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack