WEINSTOCK v. HANDLER (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Israel WEINSTOCK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Emmerich HANDLER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: November 25, 1997

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, WALLACH, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ.

Israel Weinstock, for Plaintiff-Appellants. Edward Rubin, for Defendants-Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 23, 1996, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint as against all defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is ample evidence that plaintiffs knew that the Walker defendants had previously assigned their interest in the partnership and that the note given in exchange therefor was in default. In absence of an existing contractual or fiduciary relationship, Walker was under no duty to inform plaintiffs of any purported defenses to the note (see, 900 Unlimited v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 215 A.D.2d 227, 626 N.Y.S.2d 188; Conlew, Inc. v. Uhler, 239 A.D. 380, 267 N.Y.S. 596). Further, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the occurrence of any stated contingency that would have entitled Walker, and thus plaintiffs as Walker's assignees, to additional sums for the prior conveyance of Walker's interest in the partnership. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network