Wachtel v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wachtel v. Rich

19 A.D.3d 257, 797 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017

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

DecidedJune 23, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 257 (Wachtel v. Rich) 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

Wachtel v. Rich, 19 A.D.3d 257, 797 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J), entered October 20, 2004, insofar as it granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as against defendants James and Stephanie George and the Devonian Trust, and denied the cross motion of those defendants for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documentary evidence established that defendants received $75,000 pursuant to a 1997 agreement that failed to confer the bargained-for benefit upon plaintiff’s decedent. Defendants reaffirmed their responsibility to repay the $75,000 in a 1998 agreement, but never did so. Accordingly, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and defendants failed to produce sufficient evidence of the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial of the action (see Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse [258]*258Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255 [1970]; Preferred Capital v PBK, Inc., 309 AD2d 1168 [2003]).

We have considered defendants-appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J), entered October 20, 2004, insofar as it granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as against defendants James and Stephanie George and the Devonian Trust, and denied the cross motion of those defendants for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documentary evidence established that defendants received $75,000 pursuant to a 1997 agreement that failed to confer the bargained-for benefit upon plaintiff’s decedent. Defendants reaffirmed their responsibility to repay the $75,000 in a 1998 agreement, but never did so. Accordingly, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and defendants failed to produce sufficient evidence of the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial of the action (see Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse [258]*258Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255 [1970]; Preferred Capital v PBK, Inc., 309 AD2d 1168 [2003]).

We have considered defendants-appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 257, 797 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wachtel-v-rich-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack