Alpha Capital Anstalt v. Generex Biotechnology Corp.

2020 NY Slip Op 2877, 183 A.D.3d 458, 121 N.Y.S.3d 868
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2020
Docket11513 650918/19
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 2877 (Alpha Capital Anstalt v. Generex Biotechnology Corp.) 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
Alpha Capital Anstalt v. Generex Biotechnology Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 2877, 183 A.D.3d 458, 121 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Alpha Capital Anstalt v Generex Biotechnology Corp. (2020 NY Slip Op 02877)
Alpha Capital Anstalt v Generex Biotechnology Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 02877
Decided on May 14, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 14, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, González, JJ.

11513 650918/19

[*1] Alpha Capital Anstalt, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Generex Biotechnology Corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents.


Hoffner PLLC, New York (David S. Hoffner of counsel), for appellant.

Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, Garden City (Donna Aldea of counsel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered on or about May 30, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The note upon which plaintiff sues does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only (CPLR 3213; see PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter, 147 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2017]). Insofar as it required defendant Generex to become listed on a NASDAQ exchange (the failure to do so triggering Generex's alleged default and this litigation), it "required something in addition to the defendant's explicit promise to pay a sum of money" (Interman Indus. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151, 155 [1975]).

In view of our finding that the note does not qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment, we do not reach the other issues raised.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 14, 2020

CLERK



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

Related

PDL Biopharma, Inc. v. Wohlstadter
2017 NY Slip Op 1151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc.
332 N.E.2d 859 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 2877, 183 A.D.3d 458, 121 N.Y.S.3d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alpha-capital-anstalt-v-generex-biotechnology-corp-nyappdiv-2020.