Legal Opinion
Royal Abstract Corp. v. Golenbock & Barell
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 5, 1985PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Edward J. Greenfield, J.
Plaintiff, a title company, has sued the defendant attorneys who represented the lending bank in a real estate closing because its services were not utilized. Six causes of action for prima facie tort, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with contract, defamation, work, labor and services, unjust enrichment and account stated are set forth. Defendants, insisting plaintiffs services were neither ordered nor wanted, have moved for summary judgment.
In the real estate transaction, the financing of $1,500,000 for the purchaser, Peter Sudarsky, was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. LindnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Beardsley v. . KilmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- ATI, Inc. v. Ruder & Finn, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Benton v. Kennedy-Van Saun Mfg. & Eng. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
- Penn-Ohio Steel Corp. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smukler v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Chen v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Levittown Norse Associates v. Joseph P. Day Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989