General
Srecko F. Rudic et al., Respondents, v. Elena Constante et al., Defendants, and Greenpoint Savings Bank et al., Appellants
262 A.D.2d 547691 N.Y.S.2d 348·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1999·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Srecko F. Rudic et al., Respondents, v Elena Constante et al., Defendants, and Greenpoint Savings Bank et al., Appellants.
[691 NYS2d 348]
[MAJORITY]
—In an action to recover damages for conversion and unjust enrichment, the- defendants Greenpoint Savings Bank and Cullen and Dykman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 24, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that numerous issues of fact precluded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants (see, e.g., Shapiro v McNeill, 92 NY2d 91, 96; Matter of White v City of Mount Vernon, 221 AD2d 345, 346; Nathan v Bernstein, 252 App Div 497, 499). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.