Geron v. Amritraj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geron v. Amritraj

82 A.D.3d 404, 917 N.Y.2d 855

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 404 (Geron v. Amritraj) 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

Geron v. Amritraj, 82 A.D.3d 404, 917 N.Y.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court erred to the extent it found that issues of fact [405]*405remain as to whether defendant was personally liable for obligations incurred pursuant to the agreement for legal services he entered into with the now dissolved law firm. As a promoter executing a contract on behalf of nonexistent corporate entities, defendant’s personal liability under the agreement is presumed, and the plain language of the agreement here cannot be read to have absolved defendant of such personal liability (see Grutman v Katz, 202 AD2d 293 [1994]; Clinton Invs. Co., II v Watkins, 146 AD2d 861 [1989]).

In view of defendant’s receipt and retention of plaintiff s final invoice dated December 18, 2008 without reasonably timely objection, defendant had no viable defense to plaintiff s claim to recover on an account stated (see Fleming v Vassallo, 43 AD3d 278 [2007]; Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d 249 [2005]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The court erred to the extent it found that issues of fact [405]*405remain as to whether defendant was personally liable for obligations incurred pursuant to the agreement for legal services he entered into with the now dissolved law firm. As a promoter executing a contract on behalf of nonexistent corporate entities, defendant’s personal liability under the agreement is presumed, and the plain language of the agreement here cannot be read to have absolved defendant of such personal liability (see Grutman v Katz, 202 AD2d 293 [1994]; Clinton Invs. Co., II v Watkins, 146 AD2d 861 [1989]).

In view of defendant’s receipt and retention of plaintiff s final invoice dated December 18, 2008 without reasonably timely objection, defendant had no viable defense to plaintiff s claim to recover on an account stated (see Fleming v Vassallo, 43 AD3d 278 [2007]; Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d 249 [2005]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 404, 917 N.Y.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geron-v-amritraj-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack