Sutherland v. Varrichio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutherland v. Varrichio

152 A.D.2d 562, 543 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 562 (Sutherland v. Varrichio) 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

Sutherland v. Varrichio, 152 A.D.2d 562, 543 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered June 29, 1988, which granted the motion of the defendant Mark A. Varrichio for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In this matter a disputed issue of fact exists which precludes the granting of summary judgment. The issue involved is the scope of the March 19, 1987, stipulation. We do not find that the defendant Varrichio has established as a matter of law that any of the provisions of the March 19, 1987, stipulation preclude this action by the plaintiff. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered June 29, 1988, which granted the motion of the defendant Mark A. Varrichio for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In this matter a disputed issue of fact exists which precludes the granting of summary judgment. The issue involved is the scope of the March 19, 1987, stipulation. We do not find that the defendant Varrichio has established as a matter of law that any of the provisions of the March 19, 1987, stipulation preclude this action by the plaintiff. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 562, 543 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-varrichio-nyappdiv-1989.