I. Towjer, Inc. v. Tarran

236 A.D.2d 518, 654 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1373
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 518 (I. Towjer, Inc. v. Tarran) 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
I. Towjer, Inc. v. Tarran, 236 A.D.2d 518, 654 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated February 16, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Alvin K. Tarran, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismiss[519]*519ing the complaint insofar as asserted against Alvin K. Tarran and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the defendants’ motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the complaint is reinstated against the defendant Alvin K. Tarran.

Generally, "corporate officers and directors are not liable for fraud unless they personally participate in the misrepresentation or have actual knowledge of it” (Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Co., 50 NY2d 31, 44; cf., Zanani v Savad, 228 AD2d 584; Bellinzoni v Seland, 128 AD2d 580).

In the instant case, the defendant Alvin K. Tarran, the sole shareholder and officer of the corporate defendant, negotiated the underlying transaction which forms the basis of this action as against the corporate defendant. Thus, to the extent that there were any misrepresentations made by the corporate defendant during the transaction, Tarran must have personally participated in such misrepresentations.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

YDRA, LLC v. Mitchell
123 A.D.3d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Fang
1 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
First Bank of the Americas v. Motor Car Funding, Inc.
257 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Buxton Manufacturing Co. v. Valiant Moving & Storage, Inc.
239 A.D.2d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D.2d 518, 654 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-towjer-inc-v-tarran-nyappdiv-1997.