Koeppel v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koeppel v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

128 A.D.3d 441, 6 N.Y.S.3d 481

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

DecidedMay 7, 2015

Docket15028 650889/13

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 441 (Koeppel v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.) 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

Koeppel v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 128 A.D.3d 441, 6 N.Y.S.3d 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. The amended complaint alleges no facts from which it could be inferred that defendants had any involvement with the alleged scheme of plaintiffs business partners to illegally obtain his ownership interest in the Volkswagen dealership in which they each owned an interest. Deniál of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) was not warranted because plaintiff failed to suggest the existence of any facts essential to justify opposition but *442 that cannot yet be stated (see Copp v Ramirez, 62 AD3d 23, 31-32 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. The amended complaint alleges no facts from which it could be inferred that defendants had any involvement with the alleged scheme of plaintiffs business partners to illegally obtain his ownership interest in the Volkswagen dealership in which they each owned an interest. Deniál of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) was not warranted because plaintiff failed to suggest the existence of any facts essential to justify opposition but *442 that cannot yet be stated (see Copp v Ramirez, 62 AD3d 23, 31-32 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 441, 6 N.Y.S.3d 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koeppel-v-volkswagen-group-of-america-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack