Levin v. Dorrian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levin v. Dorrian

190 A.D.2d 631, 594 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1679

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 631 (Levin v. Dorrian) 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

Levin v. Dorrian, 190 A.D.2d 631, 594 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about December 31, 1991, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the obvious confusion created by, inter alia, the unrevoked business certificate which describes John Dorrian as the owner of the trade name Dorrian’s Red Hand Restaurant, material questions of fact exist concerning whether it [632]*632was reasonable, under the circumstances, for plaintiff to serve process upon John Dorrian as an apparent authorized agent of the corporation, 1616 Second Avenue Restaurant, Inc. (the correct name of the corporation) sued herein in its apparent trade name, and whether this service misled the corporation concerning who it was that plantiff was in fact seeking to sue (see, Seda v Armory Estates, 138 AD2d 362; see also, Creative Cabinet Corp. v Future Visions Computer Store, 140 AD2d 483).

Moreover, in light of the fact that no pretrial discovery has yet to be completed, the motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action against John and Carol Dorrian in their individual capacities because of a lack of showing of an illegal sale was appropriately denied. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about December 31, 1991, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the obvious confusion created by, inter alia, the unrevoked business certificate which describes John Dorrian as the owner of the trade name Dorrian’s Red Hand Restaurant, material questions of fact exist concerning whether it [632]*632was reasonable, under the circumstances, for plaintiff to serve process upon John Dorrian as an apparent authorized agent of the corporation, 1616 Second Avenue Restaurant, Inc. (the correct name of the corporation) sued herein in its apparent trade name, and whether this service misled the corporation concerning who it was that plantiff was in fact seeking to sue (see, Seda v Armory Estates, 138 AD2d 362; see also, Creative Cabinet Corp. v Future Visions Computer Store, 140 AD2d 483).

Moreover, in light of the fact that no pretrial discovery has yet to be completed, the motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action against John and Carol Dorrian in their individual capacities because of a lack of showing of an illegal sale was appropriately denied. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 631, 594 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-dorrian-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack