Global Financial Corp. v. Triarc Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Global Financial Corp. v. Triarc Corp.

251 A.D.2d 17, 672 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391

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

DecidedJune 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 17 (Global Financial Corp. v. Triarc Corp.) 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

Global Financial Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 251 A.D.2d 17, 672 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 11, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 30, 1997, [18]*18which denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In a case seeking to recover a finder’s commission and consulting fees on theories of breach of contract and quantum meruit, the IAS Court correctly found that for purposes of CPLR 202 such causes of action accrued outside of New York, based upon plaintiffs State of incorporation and the location of its principal office (see, Investigative Group v Brooke Group, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 18513, *8-9 [SD NY, Nov. 20, 1997, Haight, J.]; cf., Kidder, Peabody & Co. v McArtor, 223 AD2d 502). Plaintiffs motion to renew was properly denied on the ground that the alternative argument raised by plaintiff should have been raised on the initial motion (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 11, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 30, 1997, [18]*18which denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In a case seeking to recover a finder’s commission and consulting fees on theories of breach of contract and quantum meruit, the IAS Court correctly found that for purposes of CPLR 202 such causes of action accrued outside of New York, based upon plaintiffs State of incorporation and the location of its principal office (see, Investigative Group v Brooke Group, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 18513, *8-9 [SD NY, Nov. 20, 1997, Haight, J.]; cf., Kidder, Peabody & Co. v McArtor, 223 AD2d 502). Plaintiffs motion to renew was properly denied on the ground that the alternative argument raised by plaintiff should have been raised on the initial motion (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 17, 672 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-financial-corp-v-triarc-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack