T.S.F. Associates Corp. v. Morris Heights Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

T.S.F. Associates Corp. v. Morris Heights Associates

210 A.D.2d 102, 620 N.Y.S.2d 950

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 102 (T.S.F. Associates Corp. v. Morris Heights 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

T.S.F. Associates Corp. v. Morris Heights Associates, 210 A.D.2d 102, 620 N.Y.S.2d 950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.),,entered on or about March 11, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that questions of fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Whether the $150,000 was intended to be a separate, payment for termination of the earlier contract or part of the consideration for the new agreement should await full disclosure and perhaps trial. Further, whether the defendants were aware that plaintiff’s affiliate could not be legally designated a managing agent at the time the new agreement was entered into also raises a question of fact.

We have considered defendants’ contention that the agreement is clear and unambiguous and find it meritless. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.),,entered on or about March 11, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that questions of fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Whether the $150,000 was intended to be a separate, payment for termination of the earlier contract or part of the consideration for the new agreement should await full disclosure and perhaps trial. Further, whether the defendants were aware that plaintiff’s affiliate could not be legally designated a managing agent at the time the new agreement was entered into also raises a question of fact.

We have considered defendants’ contention that the agreement is clear and unambiguous and find it meritless. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 102, 620 N.Y.S.2d 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsf-associates-corp-v-morris-heights-associates-nyappdiv-1994.