Berger v. J.L.T. Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berger v. J.L.T. Associates, Inc.

214 A.D.2d 418, 625 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357

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

DecidedApril 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 418 (Berger v. J.L.T. Associates, 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

Berger v. J.L.T. Associates, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 418, 625 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered June 23, [419]*4191993 which, inter alia, dismissed plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs action sounds in breach of contract, and the only promisor under the contract is Shie Tie Enterprises. The IAS Court specifically directed plaintiff to add Shie Tie Enterprises as a party defendant. Plaintiff refused to do so, and the complaint, accordingly, was properly dismissed against the present defendants, without prejudice to commencement of an action against said entity.

Plaintiffs undisclosed principal theory is raised for the first time on appeal and is factually not supported in the record. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered June 23, [419]*4191993 which, inter alia, dismissed plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs action sounds in breach of contract, and the only promisor under the contract is Shie Tie Enterprises. The IAS Court specifically directed plaintiff to add Shie Tie Enterprises as a party defendant. Plaintiff refused to do so, and the complaint, accordingly, was properly dismissed against the present defendants, without prejudice to commencement of an action against said entity.

Plaintiffs undisclosed principal theory is raised for the first time on appeal and is factually not supported in the record. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 418, 625 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berger-v-jlt-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1995.