Tanenbaum v. Dolgin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tanenbaum v. Dolgin

251 A.D.2d 492, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6865

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 492 (Tanenbaum v. Dolgin) 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

Tanenbaum v. Dolgin, 251 A.D.2d 492, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover money paid pursuant to a guaranty, the defendants Richard Agins and Irwin Siegel appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), [493]*493dated June 26, 1997, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There are triable issues of fact as to the implied equitable right of the plaintiff, as guarantor of a partnership debt, to seek reimbursement from the appellants, two former partners, for the sums he paid to the partnership’s creditors (see, Blanchard v Blanchard, 201 NY 134; Thompson v Taylor, 72 NY 32; Konitzky v Meyer, 49 NY 571). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 money paid pursuant to a guaranty, the defendants Richard Agins and Irwin Siegel appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), [493]*493dated June 26, 1997, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There are triable issues of fact as to the implied equitable right of the plaintiff, as guarantor of a partnership debt, to seek reimbursement from the appellants, two former partners, for the sums he paid to the partnership’s creditors (see, Blanchard v Blanchard, 201 NY 134; Thompson v Taylor, 72 NY 32; Konitzky v Meyer, 49 NY 571). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 492, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanenbaum-v-dolgin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack