Adelaide Productions, Inc. v. BKN International AG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adelaide Productions, Inc. v. BKN International AG

15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 316 (Adelaide Productions, Inc. v. BKN International AG) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelaide Productions, Inc. v. BKN International AG, 15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 12, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint sufficiently alleges new facts concerning defendants’ purportedly fraudulent intentions (see 175 E. 74th Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 51 NY2d 585, 590 n 1 [1980]), as evidenced by their subsequent conduct (see Tomkins PLC v Bangor Punta Consol. Corp., 194 AD2d 493 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 888 [1993]), so as to withstand a motion to dismiss on grounds of issue preclusion. Defendants’ assertion that their actions were ratified by plaintiffs is not sufficient to warrant dismissal at this juncture.

We have examined defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 12, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint sufficiently alleges new facts concerning defendants’ purportedly fraudulent intentions (see 175 E. 74th Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 51 NY2d 585, 590 n 1 [1980]), as evidenced by their subsequent conduct (see Tomkins PLC v Bangor Punta Consol. Corp., 194 AD2d 493 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 888 [1993]), so as to withstand a motion to dismiss on grounds of issue preclusion. Defendants’ assertion that their actions were ratified by plaintiffs is not sufficient to warrant dismissal at this juncture.

We have examined defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelaide-productions-inc-v-bkn-international-ag-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack