LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SSM RUDGES and CO., INC., et al. V Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0028, Appellants, Memorandum, Breach, Respondent, Costs, Dismissing, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Chase, Certified Question, Judge, Appellate Division, Chase Scientific Research, Nia Group, Defendants Argue, Opposition, Malpractice, Limitations Period, Viability, Contract, Review, Submissions Pursuant, Chief Judge Kaye, Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo Concur , ContentID: 120248755

Case Documents
1 2001-03-22 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120665
1 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 1 page.    CAUTION.    PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A ONE PAGE CASE.
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEMORANDUM
BREACH
RESPONDENT
COSTS
DISMISSING
NEGLIGENCE
FIDUCIARY DUTY
CHASE
CERTIFIED QUESTION
DEFENDANTS
JUDGE
APPELLATE DIVISION
CHASE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
NIA GROUP
DEFENDANTS ARGUE
OPPOSITION
MALPRACTICE
LIMITATIONS PERIOD
VIABILITY
CONTRACT
REVIEW
SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT
CHIEF JUDGE KAYE
JUDGES SMITH
LEVINE
CIPARICK
WESLEY
ROSENBLATT
GRAFFEO CONCUR


   1 No. 75 SSM 3
   20 Clarke Place Realty Corp., Respondent,
   v.
   Rudges and Co., Inc., et al.,
   Appellants.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 28

   March 22, 2001

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Submitted by Debra Miller Krebs, for appellants.
   Submitted by Victor Mevorah, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs,
   by dismissing the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty causes of
   action, and otherwise affirmed (see, Chase Scientific Research, Inc.,
   v The NIA Group, Inc. (decided today)). The certified question should
   be answered in the negative. Defendants argue, without opposition,
   that these causes of action -- even if not malpractice -- are barred
   by the three-year limitations period. We note, as we did in Chase,
   that defendants have not challenged the viability of the breach of
   contract cause of action, and we do not pass on it.

   On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order
   modified, without costs, by dismissing the negligence and breach of
   fiduciary duty causes of action and, as so modified, affirmed, and
   certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum. Chief
   Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and
   Graffeo concur.

   Decided March 22, 2001
SNIPPETS:
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • for appellants.
  • Submitted by Victor Mevorah, for respondent.
  • The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by dismissing the
  • The certified question should be answered in the negative.
  • Defendants argue, without opposition, that these causes of action -- even if not malpractice
  • We note, as we did in Chase, that defendants have not challenged the viability of the breach
  • On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order modified, without
  • Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
  •    |