From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oppenheim v. Pemberton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1989
154 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

In Whalen, the court also considered the cause of action to have accrued when the fraud took place, but explained that a reasonable person should have made diligent inquiries when the fraud took place, thus implying that the standard also is whether plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach of fiduciary duty.

Summary of this case from Dymm v. Cahill

Opinion

October 26, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County (Williams, J.).


The order appealed from granting a motion by defendants Dolphin Development Corporation, Blawite Properties, Inc., Fallsburgh Properties, Inc. and Edward J. Garling for partial summary judgment having been superseded by Supreme Court's order granting renewal of that earlier motion, this appeal, brought by defendant Treasure Lake Associates, has been rendered moot (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5517:1, at 174; see also, Public Serv. Truck Renting v Ambassador Ins. Co., 136 A.D.2d 911; Hyman v Hillelson, 79 A.D.2d 725, affd 55 N.Y.2d 624).

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Kane, J.P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Oppenheim v. Pemberton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1989
154 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

In Whalen, the court also considered the cause of action to have accrued when the fraud took place, but explained that a reasonable person should have made diligent inquiries when the fraud took place, thus implying that the standard also is whether plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach of fiduciary duty.

Summary of this case from Dymm v. Cahill
Case details for

Oppenheim v. Pemberton

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN L. OPPENHEIM et al., as Copartners Practicing Under the Name of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 26, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
546 N.Y.S.2d 705

Citing Cases

Dymm v. Cahill

New York courts, in cases similar to the one at bar, seem to address the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty…

In re Arbitration Between Oneida Health Sys.

Turning lastly to respondent's claims, his appeal from the May 2020 order has been rendered moot by the…