Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe)(in administration) v. AG Fin. Prods., Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 364
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 17, 2019
Docket653284/11 -5914 8137
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 364 (Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe)(in administration) v. AG Fin. Prods., 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
Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe)(in administration) v. AG Fin. Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe)(in administration) v AG Fin. Prods., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 00364)
Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe)(in administration) v AG Fin. Prods., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 00364
Decided on January 17, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 17, 2019
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Mazzarelli, Kahn, JJ.

653284/11 -5914 8137

[*1] Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration), Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

AG Financial Products, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, Amicus Curiae


Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York (Roger A. Cooper of counsel), for appellant.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Andrew J. Rossman of counsel), for respondent.

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Erik Haas of counsel), for amicus curiae.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered July 31, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite the discretion afforded to defendant under the parties' agreements to calculate its loss after the agreements had been terminated, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether defendant's loss calculation was reasonable and in good faith as required by the agreements. The court properly considered plaintiff's evidence, including expert reports, in support of its claim that defendant's calculations were not reasonable under the circumstances (see Hoag v Chancellor, Inc. , 246 AD2d 224, 230-231 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

M-5914 — Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) v AG Financial Products, Inc.

Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief granted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 17, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Hoag v. Chancellor, Inc.
246 A.D.2d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehman-bros-intl-europein-administration-v-ag-fin-prods-inc-nyappdiv-2019.