Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Jordache Enter., Inc., 235 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Jordache Enter., Inc., 235 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Phelps v. Phelps (nyappdiv, 2015-05-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phelps v. Phelps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Phelps, raised issues of fact whether the 1997 loan and mortgage documents were part of a “sham” transaction in which the alleged loan was never intended to be repaid (see Dayan v Yurkowski, 238 AD2d 541, 541-542 [1997]; Lombard & Co. v De La Roche, 235 AD2d 333, 334 [1997]; Paolangeli v Cowles, 208 AD2d 1174, 1175 [1994]; see also Bernstein v Kritzer, 253 NY 410, 416-417 [1930]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phelps v. Phelps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Phelps, raised issues of fact whether the 1997 loan and mortgage documents were part of a “sham” transaction in which the alleged loan was never intended to be repaid (see Dayan v Yurkowski, 238 AD2d 541, 541-542 [1997]; Lombard & Co. v De La Roche, 235 AD2d 333, 334 [1997]; Paolangeli v Cowles, 208 AD2d 1174, 1175 [1994]; see also Bernstein v Kritzer, 253 NY 410, 416-417 [1930]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goth v. Tremble
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, when construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, defendant has raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the existence of consideration supporting the promissory notes (see Mastro v Carroll, 296 AD2d at 803 ; Paolangeli v Cowles, 208 AD2d 1174, 1175 [1994]; cf. Bell v Xanthopoulos, 202 AD2d 910, 912 [1994]; see also DeVito v Benjamin, 243 AD2d 600, 602 [1997]; Dayan v Yurkowski, 238 AD2d 541, 541-542 [1997]; Lombard & Co. v De La Roche, 235 AD2d 333, 334 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Kamp v. Fiumera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, contrary to plaintiff’s argument otherwise, “[t]he evidence submitted by [defendant] . . . was intended not merely to contradict the express terms of the note, but was properly offered to demonstrate that the note was never intended to be an obligation enforceable against [him]” (DeVito v Benjamin, 243 AD2d at 602; see Lombard & Co. v De La Roche, 235 AD2d 333, 334 [1997]; Adirondack Bank v Simmons, 210 AD2d 651, 654 [1994]; Paolangeli v Cowles, 208 AD2d 1174, 1175 [1994]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
v.
Jordache Enterprises, Inc., Appellants-Respondents
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 28, 1997.
235 A.D.2d 333
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered October 17, 1995 and June 26, 1996, which granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment declaring that there is no coverage for certain claims made by defendants insureds under a directors and officers policy, and, upon reargument, adhered to that determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 6, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion for a stay and plaintiff’s earlier motion for summary judgment on other grounds, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic in view of the above.

The policy at issue provides coverage for liability arising out of wrongful acts committed by the corporate defendant’s directors and officers in connection with their service to the corporate defendant, and excludes coverage for their wrongful acts not committed in their capacities as directors and. officers of the corporate defendant (Coverage A, B; Exclusion 4 [k]). Upon review of the record, we find that no coverage exists pursuant to Exclusion 4 (k) because the individual defendants were acting in their personal capacities when they committed the alleged wrongful acts, rather than their capacities as directors and officers of the corporate defendant. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.