Savannah T & T Co. v. Force One Express Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Savannah T & T Co. v. Force One Express Inc.

58 A.D.3d 409, 872 N.Y.S.2d 83

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 409 (Savannah T & T Co. v. Force One Express Inc.) 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

Savannah T & T Co. v. Force One Express Inc., 58 A.D.3d 409, 872 N.Y.S.2d 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), entered July 17, 2007, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $40,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, who are importers of food from Ghana, demonstrated at trial that defendants misappropriated a container of yams that they were obligated to deliver to plaintiffs’ place of business. Defendants claimed they had a lien on the container and its contents. However, the agreement holding plaintiffs accountable for an unrelated container car that allegedly had been stolen from a third party, on which the purported lien was premised, was drafted by defendants and signed by Edwin Balidin, the corporate plaintiff’s principal, under duress, i.e., because defendants refused to release his perishable goods otherwise. Moreover, plaintiffs neither bore responsibility for the theft of the container car nor had an equitable interest in the third party such as would warrant holding them liable for reimbursing defendants for its value.

Unrefuted evidence in the form of Balidin’s testimony and an invoice from the African exporters of the yams established that the wholesale value of the misappropriated yams was $40,000.

Defendant Phil Notaro, the corporate defendant’s principal, was properly held personally liable for wrongfully withholding plaintiffs’ goods from them and for coercing Balidin into signing the purported lien agreement, regardless of whether the corporate veil was pierced (see American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v North Atl. Resources, 261 AD2d 310, 311 [1999]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), entered July 17, 2007, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $40,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, who are importers of food from Ghana, demonstrated at trial that defendants misappropriated a container of yams that they were obligated to deliver to plaintiffs’ place of business. Defendants claimed they had a lien on the container and its contents. However, the agreement holding plaintiffs accountable for an unrelated container car that allegedly had been stolen from a third party, on which the purported lien was premised, was drafted by defendants and signed by Edwin Balidin, the corporate plaintiff’s principal, under duress, i.e., because defendants refused to release his perishable goods otherwise. Moreover, plaintiffs neither bore responsibility for the theft of the container car nor had an equitable interest in the third party such as would warrant holding them liable for reimbursing defendants for its value.

Unrefuted evidence in the form of Balidin’s testimony and an invoice from the African exporters of the yams established that the wholesale value of the misappropriated yams was $40,000.

Defendant Phil Notaro, the corporate defendant’s principal, was properly held personally liable for wrongfully withholding plaintiffs’ goods from them and for coercing Balidin into signing the purported lien agreement, regardless of whether the corporate veil was pierced (see American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v North Atl. Resources, 261 AD2d 310, 311 [1999]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 409, 872 N.Y.S.2d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-t-t-co-v-force-one-express-inc-nyappdiv-2009.