HARVEY RUBIN, plf-res, v. JAMES S. BAUMANN def-ap

3459-3461. HARVEY RUBIN, plf-res, v. JAMES S. BAUMANN def-ap — Zingman & Associates PLLC, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for ap — Joseph H. Neiman, Jamaica Estates, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion denied. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2016, which denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for reargument but, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3459-3461. HARVEY RUBIN, plf-res, v. JAMES S. BAUMANN def-ap — Zingman & Associates PLLC, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for ap — Joseph H. Neiman, Jamaica Estates, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion denied. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for reargument but, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

We reject defendants’ contentions that plaintiff’s 2015 sale notice was too vague, that it was defective because it was sent by his attorney rather than plaintiff personally, that plaintiff’s motion sought relief not sought in the complaint, and that the court improperly reformed the parties’ contract. However, we agree with defendants’ argument that plaintiff was not entitled to partial summary judgment because he failed to send defendant James S. Baumann a sale notice pursuant to paragraph 8.5.2 of the Operating Agreement.

HARVEY RUBIN, plf-res, v. JAMES S. BAUMANN def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal