Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir

127 A.D.3d 448, 4 N.Y.S.3d 521

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 2015·No. 14768 652577/12·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 22, 2013, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and, upon renewal, denied defendant’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agreement of sale and purchase between defendant LLC and nonparty 587 Fifth JV, LLC, constitutes a new fact within the meaning of CPLR 2221 (e) (2). Defendant’s claim that plaintiff knew of or approved the contract is without support in the record, which shows that plaintiff learned of the contract only when 587 Fifth commenced an action to enforce it, and received the full contract only when the contract was produced in connection with that action.

The court correctly found that the terms of the contract would change its prior determination (see id.).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels 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 (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 22, 2013, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and, upon renewal, denied defendant’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agreement of sale and purchase between defendant LLC and nonparty 587 Fifth JV, LLC, constitutes a new fact within the meaning of CPLR 2221 (e) (2). Defendant’s claim that plaintiff knew of or approved the contract is without support in the record, which shows that plaintiff learned of the contract only when 587 Fifth commenced an action to enforce it, and received the full contract only when the contract was produced in connection with that action.

The court correctly found that the terms of the contract would change its prior determination (see id.).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir, 127 A.D.3d 448, 4 N.Y.S.3d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

127 A.D.3d 448 (Eshaghian v. Roshanzamir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related