Growbright Enterprises, Inc. v. Barski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Growbright Enterprises, Inc. v. Barski

115 A.D.3d 568, 982 N.Y.S.2d 313

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 568 (Growbright Enterprises, Inc. v. Barski) 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

Growbright Enterprises, Inc. v. Barski, 115 A.D.3d 568, 982 N.Y.S.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that plaintiff had standing to bring the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs standing is predicated upon an alleged oral assignment between itself and its affiliate, nonparty Trade Deals Pte., Ltd. (see M.S. Textiles v Rafaella Sportswear, 293 AD2d 261 [1st Dept 2002]). The motion court found that an oral assignment between plaintiff and Trade Deals could be effected by the 99% owner of the companies, who actively managed both businesses, without the participation of others (e.g. shareholders or directors). This finding was based on the court’s determination that the owner, who testified, inter alia, that plaintiffs recovery in this action would be shared with Trade Deals, was credible; that determination is entitled to deference.

Concur — Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that plaintiff had standing to bring the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs standing is predicated upon an alleged oral assignment between itself and its affiliate, nonparty Trade Deals Pte., Ltd. (see M.S. Textiles v Rafaella Sportswear, 293 AD2d 261 [1st Dept 2002]). The motion court found that an oral assignment between plaintiff and Trade Deals could be effected by the 99% owner of the companies, who actively managed both businesses, without the participation of others (e.g. shareholders or directors). This finding was based on the court’s determination that the owner, who testified, inter alia, that plaintiffs recovery in this action would be shared with Trade Deals, was credible; that determination is entitled to deference.

Concur — Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 568, 982 N.Y.S.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/growbright-enterprises-inc-v-barski-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack