Legal Opinion
Ardisco Financial Corp. v. de Margoulies
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 2, 1964PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRabin, J.
In this action to recover for the alleged conversion of a painting, the defendant, owner of an art gallery, appeals from that portion of an order of Special Term as denied her cross motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in her favor.
The relevant facts underlying this action are uncontroverted. Consequently there are no factual issues to be tried and the matter should he disposed of as a matter of law. It is our conclusion that summary judgment to the defendant should be granted.
On January 31, 1962 the plaintiff, Ardisco Financial…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ouderkirk v. Central National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Mullins v. . ChickeringNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Scholen v. Guaranty Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Scholen v. Guaranty Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1941
- Scholen v. Guaranty Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
3Cited by3 opinions
- John v. Sotheby's, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Pivar v. Graduate School of Figurative Art of the New York Academy of ArtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Glass v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1970