Wyoming County Bank v. Ackerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wyoming County Bank v. Ackerman

286 A.D.2d 884, 730 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9085

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 884 (Wyoming County Bank v. Ackerman) 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

Wyoming County Bank v. Ackerman, 286 A.D.2d 884, 730 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court (NeMoyer, J.) erred in granting plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict when another Supreme Court Justice (Notaro, J.) had previously denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Justice Notaro had found a triable issue of fact whether defendant complied with an agreement between the parties. “A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not necessarily res judicata or the law of the case that there is an issue of fact in the case that will be established at the trial” (Sackman-Gilliland Corp. v Senator Holding Corp., 43 AD2d 948, 949, lv denied 34 NY2d 515). Thus, the trial court was not precluded from directing a verdict in plaintiffs favor (see, Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 125 AD2d 944, 945, affd 70 NY2d 994, rearg denied 71 NY2d 995). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, NeMoyer, J. — Contract.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court (NeMoyer, J.) erred in granting plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict when another Supreme Court Justice (Notaro, J.) had previously denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Justice Notaro had found a triable issue of fact whether defendant complied with an agreement between the parties. “A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not necessarily res judicata or the law of the case that there is an issue of fact in the case that will be established at the trial” (Sackman-Gilliland Corp. v Senator Holding Corp., 43 AD2d 948, 949, lv denied 34 NY2d 515). Thus, the trial court was not precluded from directing a verdict in plaintiffs favor (see, Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 125 AD2d 944, 945, affd 70 NY2d 994, rearg denied 71 NY2d 995). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, NeMoyer, J. — Contract.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 884, 730 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyoming-county-bank-v-ackerman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack