AQ Asset Management, LLC v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AQ Asset Management, LLC v. Levine

124 A.D.3d 558, 998 N.Y.S.2d 638

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2015

Docket652367/10 --14089 14088 14087 14086

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 558 (AQ Asset Management, LLC v. Levine) 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

AQ Asset Management, LLC v. Levine, 124 A.D.3d 558, 998 N.Y.S.2d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Habsburg Holdings Ltd. and Osvaldo Patrizzi for a default judgment on their cross claims against defendant Michael Levine, denied their motions to obtain full accountings from Levine and plaintiff Evan Zimmermann and for leave to issue certain subpoenas to financial institutions, and granted the cross motion of Levine to the extent of dismissing, in part, Habsburg and Patrizzi’s fourth cross claim against him, and the seventh cross claim in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2014, which directed the sealing of certain documents in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 17, 2014, which dismissed appellants’ fifth counterclaim against plaintiffs in its entirety and the sixth counterclaim against plaintiffs in part, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The court properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cross claim against Levine as escrow attorney to the extent it related to the authorized disbursement of $625,000 to Karastir, LLC. It also properly dismissed, in its entirety, the cross claim against Levine for breach of fiduciary duty in his individual capacity as appellants’ attorney.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ request for the entry of a default judgment on their cross claims against Levine, and in directing the sealing of certain documents in this litigation.

Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions to obtain full accountings from Levine and plaintiff Evan Zimmermann and for leave to issue certain subpoenas to financial institutions.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, *559 Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Habsburg Holdings Ltd. and Osvaldo Patrizzi for a default judgment on their cross claims against defendant Michael Levine, denied their motions to obtain full accountings from Levine and plaintiff Evan Zimmermann and for leave to issue certain subpoenas to financial institutions, and granted the cross motion of Levine to the extent of dismissing, in part, Habsburg and Patrizzi’s fourth cross claim against him, and the seventh cross claim in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2014, which directed the sealing of certain documents in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 17, 2014, which dismissed appellants’ fifth counterclaim against plaintiffs in its entirety and the sixth counterclaim against plaintiffs in part, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The court properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cross claim against Levine as escrow attorney to the extent it related to the authorized disbursement of $625,000 to Karastir, LLC. It also properly dismissed, in its entirety, the cross claim against Levine for breach of fiduciary duty in his individual capacity as appellants’ attorney.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ request for the entry of a default judgment on their cross claims against Levine, and in directing the sealing of certain documents in this litigation.

Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions to obtain full accountings from Levine and plaintiff Evan Zimmermann and for leave to issue certain subpoenas to financial institutions.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, *559 Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 558, 998 N.Y.S.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aq-asset-management-llc-v-levine-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack