Belmont v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belmont v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

18 A.D.3d 292, 795 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259

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

DecidedMay 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 292 (Belmont v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.) 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

Belmont v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 18 A.D.3d 292, 795 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J), entered June 17, 2004, which denied the petition seeking preaction discovery pursuant to CELR 3102 (c), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner did not show the existence of a meritorious cause of action sufficient to warrant granting her preaction discovery [293]*293(see Holzman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 271 AD2d 346, 347-348 [2000]). The chattels which petitioner now seeks returned—shares of a now-defunct pharmaceutical company she claims her brother stole in 1987 and then merged into another company acquired by a subsidiary of respondent— were never in the possession of respondent or any of its subsidiaries. Additionally, respondent was named as a defendant in petitioner’s Peruvian civil lawsuit premised on the same alleged illegitimate stock transfer in 1987, and the Peruvian courts rejected petitioner’s claims. In the absence of a semblance of a legitimate replevin claim, petitioner cannot prevail on her argument that she needs discovery to gather facts necessary to “pierce the corporate veil” between respondent and its subsidiaries in Peru in order to discover the identity of prospective defendants and properly frame a complaint. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J), entered June 17, 2004, which denied the petition seeking preaction discovery pursuant to CELR 3102 (c), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner did not show the existence of a meritorious cause of action sufficient to warrant granting her preaction discovery [293]*293(see Holzman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 271 AD2d 346, 347-348 [2000]). The chattels which petitioner now seeks returned—shares of a now-defunct pharmaceutical company she claims her brother stole in 1987 and then merged into another company acquired by a subsidiary of respondent— were never in the possession of respondent or any of its subsidiaries. Additionally, respondent was named as a defendant in petitioner’s Peruvian civil lawsuit premised on the same alleged illegitimate stock transfer in 1987, and the Peruvian courts rejected petitioner’s claims. In the absence of a semblance of a legitimate replevin claim, petitioner cannot prevail on her argument that she needs discovery to gather facts necessary to “pierce the corporate veil” between respondent and its subsidiaries in Peru in order to discover the identity of prospective defendants and properly frame a complaint. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 292, 795 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belmont-v-bristol-myers-squibb-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack