Asset Growth Partners v. Global Environmental Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asset Growth Partners v. Global Environmental Holdings, Inc.

184 A.D.2d 282

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

DecidedJune 11, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 282 (Asset Growth Partners v. Global Environmental Holdings, Inc.) 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

Asset Growth Partners v. Global Environmental Holdings, Inc., 184 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.) entered January 29, 1992 which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to solicit investment financing on defendants’ behalf in exchange for, inter alia, a fee and shares of stock. Defendants’ obligation to pay the compensation was conditioned on defendants’ acceptance of a financing proposal arranged by plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendants, acting through their president, defendant Rice, accepted such a proposal, and reaffirmed that acceptance shortly thereafter, and then revoked their acceptance.

The IAS court correctly determined that defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that their obligation to plaintiff was triggered only upon closing of the deal, and that defendants retained under the agreement a unilateral right to withdraw from any proposed financing at any time until closing.

We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.) entered January 29, 1992 which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to solicit investment financing on defendants’ behalf in exchange for, inter alia, a fee and shares of stock. Defendants’ obligation to pay the compensation was conditioned on defendants’ acceptance of a financing proposal arranged by plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendants, acting through their president, defendant Rice, accepted such a proposal, and reaffirmed that acceptance shortly thereafter, and then revoked their acceptance.

The IAS court correctly determined that defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that their obligation to plaintiff was triggered only upon closing of the deal, and that defendants retained under the agreement a unilateral right to withdraw from any proposed financing at any time until closing.

We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asset-growth-partners-v-global-environmental-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-1992.