Hamilton Group (Delaware), Inc. v. Cablevision Corp.

2 A.D.3d 1440, 769 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14425

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1440 (Hamilton Group (Delaware), Inc. v. Cablevision 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
Hamilton Group (Delaware), Inc. v. Cablevision Corp., 2 A.D.3d 1440, 769 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

[1441]*1441Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.), entered January 15, 2003, which granted the motion of defendant Cablevision Corporation to dismiss the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint against defendant Cablevision Corporation is reinstated.

Memorandum: We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of Cablevision Corporation (defendant) to dismiss the complaint against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7). The redirection letter sent to defendant jointly by plaintiff and its predecessor in interest, National Staffing, Inc. (National), was sufficient to place defendant on inquiry notice that there had been an assignment of its account from National to plaintiff. “[T]he letter reasonably identifies the rights to be assigned and notifies [defendant] to direct payment to plaintiffs address” (Hamilton Group v Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, 1 AD3d 969, 970 [2003]; see UCC 9-406). Thus, the complaint states a cause of action. In addition, the documentary evidence submitted by defendant does not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; see Technology for Measurement v Briggs, 291 AD2d 902, 903 [2002]) because the documentary evidence submitted by defendant indicates that it remitted payment to an address other than the address specified in the redirection letter. Therefore, we reverse the order, deny the motion of defendant, and reinstate the complaint against it. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

Related

Leon v. Martinez
638 N.E.2d 511 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Hamilton Group (Delaware,) Inc. v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
1 A.D.2d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Technology for Measurement, Inc. v. Briggs
291 A.D.2d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 1440, 769 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-group-delaware-inc-v-cablevision-corp-nyappdiv-2003.