Williams v. Hinkson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Hinkson

217 A.D.2d 618, 630 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 618 (Williams v. Hinkson) 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

Williams v. Hinkson, 217 A.D.2d 618, 630 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Turret, J.), dated April 21, 1994, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $40,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that in response to the defendant’s promise to invest the plaintiff’s money, the plaintiff gave the defendant $40,000, which the defendant then failed to invest for her. Furthermore, the court properly awarded interest from the date the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant to be invested on her behalf (see, CPLR 5001). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Turret, J.), dated April 21, 1994, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $40,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that in response to the defendant’s promise to invest the plaintiff’s money, the plaintiff gave the defendant $40,000, which the defendant then failed to invest for her. Furthermore, the court properly awarded interest from the date the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant to be invested on her behalf (see, CPLR 5001). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 618, 630 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hinkson-nyappdiv-1995.