Ginsberg v. Schron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ginsberg v. Schron

288 A.D.2d 146, 732 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11473

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 146 (Ginsberg v. Schron) 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

Ginsberg v. Schron, 288 A.D.2d 146, 732 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Schron, Cam Metro L. L. C., Cam Metro II L. L. C. and Cammeb/s International Corp. to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by his September 10, 1999 release, releasing claims “whether known or unknown,” since he failed to set forth grounds to set the release aside (see, Calavano v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 246 AD2d 317, 319). In any event, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. As the motion court aptly perceived, the subject pool agreements did not create a joint venture because they did not provide for the sharing of losses (see, Ackerman v Landes, 112 AD2d 1081, 1082); therefore, no fiduciary obligation of loyalty arose for breach of which respondents could be held liable. Moreover, plaintiff’s prior breach of the pool agreements by settling without defendants’ consent discharged them from their obligations (see, Pitcher v Benderson-Wainberg Assocs. II, Ltd. Partnership, 277 AD2d 586, 587, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 792; Duke Media Sales v Jakel Corp., 215 AD2d 237, 238). Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s claimed need for discovery is unavailing.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Schron, Cam Metro L. L. C., Cam Metro II L. L. C. and Cammeb/s International Corp. to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by his September 10, 1999 release, releasing claims “whether known or unknown,” since he failed to set forth grounds to set the release aside (see, Calavano v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 246 AD2d 317, 319). In any event, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. As the motion court aptly perceived, the subject pool agreements did not create a joint venture because they did not provide for the sharing of losses (see, Ackerman v Landes, 112 AD2d 1081, 1082); therefore, no fiduciary obligation of loyalty arose for breach of which respondents could be held liable. Moreover, plaintiff’s prior breach of the pool agreements by settling without defendants’ consent discharged them from their obligations (see, Pitcher v Benderson-Wainberg Assocs. II, Ltd. Partnership, 277 AD2d 586, 587, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 792; Duke Media Sales v Jakel Corp., 215 AD2d 237, 238). Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s claimed need for discovery is unavailing.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 146, 732 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsberg-v-schron-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack