Legal Opinion
Boccia v. Murphy
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 4, 2003PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Arnold N. Price, J.
*550I. The Relevant Facts
David Dillane and Maureen Murphy decided to purchase a business which they intended to, and did, operate under the name of 711 BB Bar Ltd. (the corporation). At the closing, the corporation executed two notes, one in the amount of $100,000, and another in the amount of $25,000. Ultimately, the plaintiffs commenced an action against Dillane, Murphy and the corporation to collect amounts owed on the notes (the underlying action).1
During the course of the underlying action, Dillane and Murphy were represented by the same counsel…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mitchell v. New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Rock v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Harbeck v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Green Bus Lines, Inc. v. Consolidated Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. New York State Housing Finance AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boccia v. MurphyNew York Supreme Court, Queens County · 2003
- In re MasonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2017