Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)

Citation: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Parent Document: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2006-01-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5836114/edge-management-consulting-inc-v-blank/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)

Full Text

281 chars

Irmas contends that the Blank Trust was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the alteration agreement she entered into with the condominium’s board of managers. Alternatively, if the Blank Trust was an intended beneficiary, Irmas argues it failed to properly plead the claim.