New York Studios, Inc. v. Steiner Digital Studios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Studios, Inc. v. Steiner Digital Studios

2017 NY Slip Op 4397, 151 A.D.3d 454, 53 N.Y.S.3d 526

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

DecidedJune 6, 2017

Docket4176 654351/12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4397 (New York Studios, Inc. v. Steiner Digital Studios) 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

New York Studios, Inc. v. Steiner Digital Studios, 2017 NY Slip Op 4397, 151 A.D.3d 454, 53 N.Y.S.3d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2016, which, to the extent ap *455 pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for usurpation of corporate opportunities and an accounting, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ operating agreement, which allows defendants to compete with plaintiff Eponymous Associates, LLC, does not flatly contradict plaintiffs’ claim that defendants usurped Eponymous’s corporate opportunities and assets (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999], affd 94 NY2d 659 [2000]; see also Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). However, the claim is not pleaded with the requisite particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Peacock v Herald Sq. Loft Corp., 67 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2009]).

In the absence of an allegation that plaintiffs demanded an accounting, the claim for an accounting fails to state a cause of action (see Unitel Telecard Distrib. Corp. v Nunez, 90 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2011]; Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf, 238 AD2d 234, 241 [1st Dept 1997]; compare Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 123-124 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2016, which, to the extent ap *455 pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for usurpation of corporate opportunities and an accounting, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ operating agreement, which allows defendants to compete with plaintiff Eponymous Associates, LLC, does not flatly contradict plaintiffs’ claim that defendants usurped Eponymous’s corporate opportunities and assets (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999], affd 94 NY2d 659 [2000]; see also Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). However, the claim is not pleaded with the requisite particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Peacock v Herald Sq. Loft Corp., 67 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2009]).

In the absence of an allegation that plaintiffs demanded an accounting, the claim for an accounting fails to state a cause of action (see Unitel Telecard Distrib. Corp. v Nunez, 90 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2011]; Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf, 238 AD2d 234, 241 [1st Dept 1997]; compare Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 123-124 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4397, 151 A.D.3d 454, 53 N.Y.S.3d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-studios-inc-v-steiner-digital-studios-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack