M.L. Weiner & Associates v. S.I.K. Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M.L. Weiner & Associates v. S.I.K. Sales Corp.

4 A.D.3d 177, 771 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1642

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 177 (M.L. Weiner & Associates v. S.I.K. Sales Corp.) 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

M.L. Weiner & Associates v. S.I.K. Sales Corp., 4 A.D.3d 177, 771 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 9, 2003, which denied the motion of the Kirschbaum defendants to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly concluded that it is not clear as a matter of law that the moving defendants signed the subject sales repayment agreement, pursuant to which plaintiffs allege they are jointly and severally bound, only on the corporate defendant’s behalf and not in their individual capacities. Accordingly, their motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5) was properly denied (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 9, 2003, which denied the motion of the Kirschbaum defendants to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly concluded that it is not clear as a matter of law that the moving defendants signed the subject sales repayment agreement, pursuant to which plaintiffs allege they are jointly and severally bound, only on the corporate defendant’s behalf and not in their individual capacities. Accordingly, their motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5) was properly denied (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 177, 771 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ml-weiner-associates-v-sik-sales-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack