You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Niego v. Braun

Citations: 212 A.D.2d 445; 623 N.Y.S.2d 109

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 20, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County, presided by Justice William Davis, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff regarding the defendant’s counterclaim for prima facie tort on or about May 13, 1994. This decision was unanimously affirmed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. The court acknowledged that a contractual relationship existed between the parties, as established in the complaint and conceded by the defendant in his answer and counterclaims. The court concluded that the defendant's prima facie tort counterclaim lacked merit because the evidence indicated that the plaintiff's motive for initiating the action was not based on disinterested malevolence, as required for such a claim. The ruling referenced the precedent set in Burns Jackson Miller Summit v. Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333. The decision was concurred by Justices Wallach, Rubin, Ross, Asch, and Mazzarelli.

Legal Issues Addressed

Existence of Contractual Relationship

Application: The court acknowledged an existing contractual relationship between the parties, which was established in the complaint and conceded by the defendant.

Reasoning: The court acknowledged that a contractual relationship existed between the parties, as established in the complaint and conceded by the defendant in his answer and counterclaims.

Legal Precedent

Application: The court referenced the precedent set in Burns Jackson Miller Summit v. Lindner to support its decision.

Reasoning: The ruling referenced the precedent set in Burns Jackson Miller Summit v. Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333.

Prima Facie Tort

Application: The court found the defendant's counterclaim for prima facie tort lacked merit because the plaintiff's motive was not based on disinterested malevolence.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the defendant's prima facie tort counterclaim lacked merit because the evidence indicated that the plaintiff's motive for initiating the action was not based on disinterested malevolence, as required for such a claim.

Summary Judgment

Application: The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim for prima facie tort.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County, presided by Justice William Davis, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff regarding the defendant’s counterclaim for prima facie tort on or about May 13, 1994.