Farkas v. Farkas, 183 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Farkas v. Farkas, 183 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (nyappdiv, 2012-06-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
Pursuant to that rule, “[c]ofiduciaries are . . . regarded in law as one entity . . . [and thus one cofiduciary] cannot prevail in a cause of action against [other] cofiduciaries for breach of the same obligation” (id.; see Matter of Goldstick, 177 AD2d 225, 238-239 [1992], modified upon rearg on other grounds 183 AD2d 684 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see" In re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of Knox
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
The cofiduciary liability rule provides that “[c]ofiduciaries are . . . regarded in law as one entity . . . [and thus one cofiduciary] cannot prevail in a cause of action against [other] cofiduciaries for breach of the same obligation” (id.; see Matter of Goldstick, 177 AD2d 225, 238-239 [1992], rearg granted on other grounds 183 AD2d 684 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see" HSBC BANK USA, N.A. v. KNOX, JEAN R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
The cofiduciary liability rule provides that “[c]ofiduciaries are . . . regarded in law as one entity . . . [and thus one cofiduciary] cannot prevail in a cause of action against [other] cofiduciaries for breach of the same obligation” (id.; see Matter of Goldstick, 177 AD2d 225, 238-239 , rearg granted on other grounds 183 AD2d 684 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arlene Farkas
v.
Bruce R. Farkas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 28, 1992.
183 A.D.2d 684
Published

— Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on December 31, 1991 and on or about March 3, 1992, respectively, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Gangel-Jacob, J., without costs and without disbursements. Motion by defendant-appellant for a stay is denied. No opinion. Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.