Johnson v. Société Générale S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Société Générale S.A.

80 A.D.3d 530, 914 N.Y.S.2d 734

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 530 (Johnson v. Société Générale S.A.) 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

Johnson v. Société Générale S.A., 80 A.D.3d 530, 914 N.Y.S.2d 734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 4, 2010, dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff investors’ factual allegations failed to support a claim that they were entitled to legal recourse against defendant guarantor based on its guaranty of the nonparty debtor’s alleged payment obligations owed to plaintiffs (see generally Robinson v Robinson, 303 AD2d 234, 235 [2003]; Kalmanash v Smith, 291 NY 142, 154 [1943]). The amended complaint essentially acknowledges that there is no definitive sum owed plaintiffs by the debtor, and that a trial on plaintiffs’ claims against the debtor would be necessary to determine such sum, if any (see generally Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc., 81 NY2d 138, 141-142 [1993]; Midland Steel Warehouse Corp. v Godinger Silver Art, 276 AD2d 341, 343-344 [2000]). Plaintiffs’ "belie[f]” that the debtor might owe them $1,000,000 in payments on their investments is entirely speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, no obligation can be said to have accrued against the guarantor here. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 4, 2010, dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff investors’ factual allegations failed to support a claim that they were entitled to legal recourse against defendant guarantor based on its guaranty of the nonparty debtor’s alleged payment obligations owed to plaintiffs (see generally Robinson v Robinson, 303 AD2d 234, 235 [2003]; Kalmanash v Smith, 291 NY 142, 154 [1943]). The amended complaint essentially acknowledges that there is no definitive sum owed plaintiffs by the debtor, and that a trial on plaintiffs’ claims against the debtor would be necessary to determine such sum, if any (see generally Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc., 81 NY2d 138, 141-142 [1993]; Midland Steel Warehouse Corp. v Godinger Silver Art, 276 AD2d 341, 343-344 [2000]). Plaintiffs’ "belie[f]” that the debtor might owe them $1,000,000 in payments on their investments is entirely speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, no obligation can be said to have accrued against the guarantor here. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 530, 914 N.Y.S.2d 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-societe-generale-sa-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack