York/Hunter, Inc. v. Oratz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

York/Hunter, Inc. v. Oratz

281 A.D.2d 542, 721 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 542 (York/Hunter, Inc. v. Oratz) 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

York/Hunter, Inc. v. Oratz, 281 A.D.2d 542, 721 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to set aside the transfer of certain real property as fraudulent, the defendant Benjamin Oratz appeals and the defendant Westmoreland Associates separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as there are triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Liberty Co. v Boyle, 272 AD2d 380; Glasser v Kashinsky, 237 AD2d 252; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice, 199 AD2d 365). Bracken, P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to set aside the transfer of certain real property as fraudulent, the defendant Benjamin Oratz appeals and the defendant Westmoreland Associates separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as there are triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Liberty Co. v Boyle, 272 AD2d 380; Glasser v Kashinsky, 237 AD2d 252; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice, 199 AD2d 365). Bracken, P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 542, 721 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yorkhunter-inc-v-oratz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack