Tutora v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tutora v. Siegel

40 A.D.3d 227, 833 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedMay 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 227 (Tutora v. Siegel) 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

Tutora v. Siegel, 40 A.D.3d 227, 833 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered June 28, 2006, which granted defendant Irwin Siegel’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Accepting the factual allegations raised in the complaint and [228]*228in plaintiffs affidavit in opposition to the motion as true (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the court properly determined that no breach of contract claim was stated against Siegel. The pleadings failed to allege the existence of a contract between plaintiff and Siegel, who was acting on behalf of the fully disclosed corporate defendant. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered June 28, 2006, which granted defendant Irwin Siegel’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Accepting the factual allegations raised in the complaint and [228]*228in plaintiffs affidavit in opposition to the motion as true (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the court properly determined that no breach of contract claim was stated against Siegel. The pleadings failed to allege the existence of a contract between plaintiff and Siegel, who was acting on behalf of the fully disclosed corporate defendant. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 227, 833 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tutora-v-siegel-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack