ePlus Group, Inc. v. Dentons US LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ePlus Group, Inc. v. Dentons US LLP

126 A.D.3d 508, 2 N.Y.S.3d 794

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

Docket14509 114208/11

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 508 (ePlus Group, Inc. v. Dentons US LLP) 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

ePlus Group, Inc. v. Dentons US LLP, 126 A.D.3d 508, 2 N.Y.S.3d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered on September 5, 2014, which, upon reargument, granted defendant’s motion *509 to dismiss plaintiffs’ first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action as barred by a release, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion denied.

Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant’s predecessor in interest were carved out from the release at issue; accordingly, those claims are not precluded as a matter of law (CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen, 104 AD3d 17, 29 [1st Dept 2012], affd in relevant part 23 NY3d 307 [2014]). The carve-out provision was intended to specifically anticipate the arguments raised by defendant. By enforcing the carve-out provision, this Court is giving effect to the intent of the parties to the release (Evans v Famous Music Corp., 1 NY3d 452, 458 [2004]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered on September 5, 2014, which, upon reargument, granted defendant’s motion *509 to dismiss plaintiffs’ first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action as barred by a release, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion denied.

Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant’s predecessor in interest were carved out from the release at issue; accordingly, those claims are not precluded as a matter of law (CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen, 104 AD3d 17, 29 [1st Dept 2012], affd in relevant part 23 NY3d 307 [2014]). The carve-out provision was intended to specifically anticipate the arguments raised by defendant. By enforcing the carve-out provision, this Court is giving effect to the intent of the parties to the release (Evans v Famous Music Corp., 1 NY3d 452, 458 [2004]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 508, 2 N.Y.S.3d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eplus-group-inc-v-dentons-us-llp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack