Yekimov v. Fremd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yekimov v. Fremd

161 A.D.2d 765, 558 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725

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

DecidedMay 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 765 (Yekimov v. Fremd) 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

Yekimov v. Fremd, 161 A.D.2d 765, 558 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered March 9, 1989, which, upon an order of the same court, entered March 2, 1989, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff upon séarching the record, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $450,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Becker in the order entered March 2, 1989.

We further note that many of the issues raised by the defendant were not advanced before the Supreme Court, and thus have been raised improperly for the first time on appeal (see, Empire Indus. Sys. Corp. v Northeastern Bank, 144 AD2d 429; Singer v Lowi, 132 AD2d 542, 543). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan and Balletta, 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, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered March 9, 1989, which, upon an order of the same court, entered March 2, 1989, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff upon séarching the record, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $450,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Becker in the order entered March 2, 1989.

We further note that many of the issues raised by the defendant were not advanced before the Supreme Court, and thus have been raised improperly for the first time on appeal (see, Empire Indus. Sys. Corp. v Northeastern Bank, 144 AD2d 429; Singer v Lowi, 132 AD2d 542, 543). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 765, 558 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yekimov-v-fremd-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack