Stahlanson Associates v. Comlo Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stahlanson Associates v. Comlo Associates

207 A.D.2d 690, 616 N.Y.S.2d 944

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 690 (Stahlanson Associates v. Comlo Associates) 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

Stahlanson Associates v. Comlo Associates, 207 A.D.2d 690, 616 N.Y.S.2d 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered February 7, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), on the issue of defendants’ liability for monies advanced by plaintiffs on behalf of defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs summary judgment and, as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We disagree with the IAS Court’s characterization of the evidence as "compelling” and find questions of fact presented as to whether the advances in issue were personal loans "made directly on behalf of defendants and not the partnership”, as the IAS Court found. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiffs. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered February 7, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), on the issue of defendants’ liability for monies advanced by plaintiffs on behalf of defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs summary judgment and, as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We disagree with the IAS Court’s characterization of the evidence as "compelling” and find questions of fact presented as to whether the advances in issue were personal loans "made directly on behalf of defendants and not the partnership”, as the IAS Court found. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiffs. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 690, 616 N.Y.S.2d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stahlanson-associates-v-comlo-associates-nyappdiv-1994.