Stern v. Folgeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Folgeman

248 A.D.2d 237, 671 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2603

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 237 (Stern v. Folgeman) 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

Stern v. Folgeman, 248 A.D.2d 237, 671 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 19, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment upon his counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” either with respect to the contested issue of plaintiff’s status (i.e., whether plaintiff was a joint venturer or a commissioned salesman), relevant to the disposition of the complaint, or with respect to the issue of whether plaintiff in fact wrongfully diverted business from defendant, relevant to the disposition of defendant’s counterclaim (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Accordingly, the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was correct in its entirety (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Andidas, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 19, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment upon his counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” either with respect to the contested issue of plaintiff’s status (i.e., whether plaintiff was a joint venturer or a commissioned salesman), relevant to the disposition of the complaint, or with respect to the issue of whether plaintiff in fact wrongfully diverted business from defendant, relevant to the disposition of defendant’s counterclaim (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Accordingly, the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was correct in its entirety (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 237, 671 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-folgeman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack