Legal Opinion
Lund v. Chemical Bank
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 27, 1991No. 84 Civ. 1621 (RWS)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant Chemical Bank (“Chemical”) has moved pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for entry of judgment in its favor in accordance with the opinion dated February 16, 1990, which granted its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lund’s, Inc. (“LI”) has renewed its motion for reconsideration of the February 16 opinion. For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration is granted and on reconsideration the February 16 opinion is affirmed, with judgment to be entered in favor of Chemical pursuant to the earlier opinion.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. Barclays Bank of New York, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
- State v. Barclays BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Lund v. Chemical BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Wolfin v. Security BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Wolfin v. . the Security Bank of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lund v. Chemical BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Freer v. MayerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Lesser v. TD Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2020