Barden Solutions, Inc. v. Bassetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barden Solutions, Inc. v. Bassetti

38 A.D.3d 1199, 834 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1199 (Barden Solutions, Inc. v. Bassetti) 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

Barden Solutions, Inc. v. Bassetti, 38 A.D.3d 1199, 834 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J), entered October 28, 2005. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, contrary to plaintiff s contention, the decision in Boss v American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. (6 NY3d 242 [2006]) does not compel a different result here. The plaintiffs in Boss not only agreed that the courts of Minnesota had jurisdiction over any controversy and that the law of Minnesota would govern, but they also expressly “waived any privilege to have their claim heard elsewhere” (id. at 246). Present—Scudder, PJ., Hurlbutt, Smith, Lunn and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J), entered October 28, 2005. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, contrary to plaintiff s contention, the decision in Boss v American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. (6 NY3d 242 [2006]) does not compel a different result here. The plaintiffs in Boss not only agreed that the courts of Minnesota had jurisdiction over any controversy and that the law of Minnesota would govern, but they also expressly “waived any privilege to have their claim heard elsewhere” (id. at 246). Present—Scudder, PJ., Hurlbutt, Smith, Lunn and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 1199, 834 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barden-solutions-inc-v-bassetti-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack