Winslow v. Norstar Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winslow v. Norstar Bank

127 A.D.2d 759, 512 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53410

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 759 (Winslow v. Norstar Bank) 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

Winslow v. Norstar Bank, 127 A.D.2d 759, 512 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated November 27, 1985, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on his first cause of action, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the [760]*760same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff established that the defendant provided him with erroneous information regarding the value of his Mariah Oil & Gas Corp. stock on three quarterly statements, there are material issues of fact presented as to whether the plaintiff justifiably relied upon this information, and whether the defendant acted in good faith in providing this information. Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied to both parties (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated November 27, 1985, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on his first cause of action, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the [760]*760same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff established that the defendant provided him with erroneous information regarding the value of his Mariah Oil & Gas Corp. stock on three quarterly statements, there are material issues of fact presented as to whether the plaintiff justifiably relied upon this information, and whether the defendant acted in good faith in providing this information. Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied to both parties (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 759, 512 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winslow-v-norstar-bank-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack