Quality Leasing & Management Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quality Leasing & Management Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass'n

245 A.D.2d 30, 665 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12509

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on July 3, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross-motion and to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The evidence tending to prove that plaintiff fraudulently obtained its contract to supply computer equipment to defendant consisted of proof of certain payments made by plaintiff to a company known as DF Systems, Inc. (DF). Questions of fact remain as to whether plaintiff was aware that that company was controlled by defendant’s former employee, Inez DeFonseca, who negotiated the contract on defendant’s behalf and who has since been convicted of criminal bank fraud charges as a result of her involvement in a bribery and kickback scheme, and as to whether plaintiff received any services from DF in exchange for the payments.

Under these circumstances, while the circumstantial evidence of bribery may be strong, we cannot say at this juncture that there are no material issues of fact so as to warrant summary judgment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on July 3, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross-motion and to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The evidence tending to prove that plaintiff fraudulently obtained its contract to supply computer equipment to defendant consisted of proof of certain payments made by plaintiff to a company known as DF Systems, Inc. (DF). Questions of fact remain as to whether plaintiff was aware that that company was controlled by defendant’s former employee, Inez DeFonseca, who negotiated the contract on defendant’s behalf and who has since been convicted of criminal bank fraud charges as a result of her involvement in a bribery and kickback scheme, and as to whether plaintiff received any services from DF in exchange for the payments.

Under these circumstances, while the circumstantial evidence of bribery may be strong, we cannot say at this juncture that there are no material issues of fact so as to warrant summary judgment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Quality Leasing & Management Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 245 A.D.2d 30, 665 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 30 (Quality Leasing & Management Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related