Northglen Capital Corp. v. Competex, S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northglen Capital Corp. v. Competex, S.A.

88 A.D.2d 577, 451 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16736

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

DecidedMay 27, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 577 (Northglen Capital Corp. v. Competex, S.A.) 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

Northglen Capital Corp. v. Competex, S.A., 88 A.D.2d 577, 451 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kirschenbaum, J.), entered March 4, 1981, which denied the motion of the defendants (other than Competex, S. A.) to dismiss the complaint as to them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. In 1979, defendant Competex, S. A., acted as a broker for plaintiff’s customers on the London Metals Exchange. Plaintiff purportedly defaulted on the payment of commissions to Competex, S. A., and the latter retaliated by refusing to deliver the customer copies of the confirmations of the 1979 orders. During the course of negotiations to resolve the dispute between the principals, plaintiff and defendant Competex, S. A., the latter delivered the confirmations to the defendant law firm, Leon, Weill & Mahony, for subsequent delivery to plaintiff if a settlement was accomplished. The negotiations collapsed. Plaintiff thereupon commenced an injunction action against Competex, S. A. and Competex’ legal representative during the negotiations, the defendant law firm, seeking to compel the turning over to it of the customer copies of the confirmations. .The defendant law firm moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]) on the basis that they no longer have possession of the confirmation copies and sought to have the court treat the motion as one for summary judgment relief: Special Term denied the motion on the ground that a factual issue exists as to possession of the confirmation slips. However, such issue need not be. considered, because it is clear that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the law firm. There is no jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant law firm; no [578]*578duty owing by said firm to plaintiff which was breached. The dispute is between plaintiff and defendant Competex, not between plaintiff and Competex’ attorneys. Concur — Carro, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kirschenbaum, J.), entered March 4, 1981, which denied the motion of the defendants (other than Competex, S. A.) to dismiss the complaint as to them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. In 1979, defendant Competex, S. A., acted as a broker for plaintiff’s customers on the London Metals Exchange. Plaintiff purportedly defaulted on the payment of commissions to Competex, S. A., and the latter retaliated by refusing to deliver the customer copies of the confirmations of the 1979 orders. During the course of negotiations to resolve the dispute between the principals, plaintiff and defendant Competex, S. A., the latter delivered the confirmations to the defendant law firm, Leon, Weill & Mahony, for subsequent delivery to plaintiff if a settlement was accomplished. The negotiations collapsed. Plaintiff thereupon commenced an injunction action against Competex, S. A. and Competex’ legal representative during the negotiations, the defendant law firm, seeking to compel the turning over to it of the customer copies of the confirmations. .The defendant law firm moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]) on the basis that they no longer have possession of the confirmation copies and sought to have the court treat the motion as one for summary judgment relief: Special Term denied the motion on the ground that a factual issue exists as to possession of the confirmation slips. However, such issue need not be. considered, because it is clear that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the law firm. There is no jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant law firm; no [578]*578duty owing by said firm to plaintiff which was breached. The dispute is between plaintiff and defendant Competex, not between plaintiff and Competex’ attorneys. Concur — Carro, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 577, 451 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northglen-capital-corp-v-competex-sa-nyappdiv-1982.