Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik

2018 NY Slip Op 3451
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2018
Docket6528 161257/13
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 3451 (Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik) 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
Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 2018 NY Slip Op 3451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Deutsche Bank AG v Vik (2018 NY Slip Op 03451)
Deutsche Bank AG v Vik
2018 NY Slip Op 03451
Decided on May 10, 2018
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 10, 2018
Friedman, J.P., Tom, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

6528 161257/13

[*1]Deutsche Bank AG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Alexander Vik, et al., Defendants, The CSCSNE Trust, et al., Defendants-Respondents.


Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York (Sheila C. Ramesh of counsel), for appellant.

Becker, Glynn, Muffly, Chassin & Hosinski LLP, New York (Robin L. Alperstein of cousnel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 9, 2017, which granted the motion of defendants Ivan Gonell Santana (Santana) and the CSCSNE Trust (the Trust) to dismiss the action against them and denied, as moot, the alternative motion of Santana and the Trust to stay the action against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion to dismiss, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As this Court previously determined that the complaint sufficiently alleges that the Trust was an alter ego of Vik and the other defendant entities, the Trust, upon service of process on its trustee solely in his capacity as such, is subject to the jurisdiction of the New York courts for purposes of determining the truth of plaintiff's alter ego allegations (see Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v Indus. Carriers, Inc., 571 F3d 221, 224 [2d Cir 2009]; Delagi v Volkswagenwerk AG of Wolfsburg, Germany 29 NY2d 426 [1972]; Hantman & Assoc. v Florida Family Off. LLC, __ Misc 3d __, 2015 NY Slip Op 30681[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 10, 2018

CLERK



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

Related

Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.
571 F.3d 221 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Delagi v. Volkswagenwerk AG of Wolfsburg
278 N.E.2d 895 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 3451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik-nyappdiv-2018.