Schiffman v. International Marketing Group, U.S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schiffman v. International Marketing Group, U.S.A.

304 A.D.2d 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4184

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 422 (Schiffman v. International Marketing Group, U.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

Schiffman v. International Marketing Group, U.S.A., 304 A.D.2d 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about January 16, 2002, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiffs allegations cannot be determined on the present record on appeal, since plaintiff has failed to include a copy of the complaint, this action is apparently one for age discrimination against plaintiffs former employer. Defendants defaulted and an inquest was held, at which plaintiff testified, variously, that he was employed by “IMG USA” (presumably defendant International Marketing Group, U.S.A.), by “Promotica, Inc.,” by “IMG” (which he stated was International Marketing Group, a company already dismissed from this action), or by “Promotica IMG” in Italy. He further testified that “IMG [is] also known as Promotica, Inc.,” but also testified that Promotica is a subsidiary of IMG. Additionally, plaintiffs purported employment contract, contained in the record on appeal and unsigned by any employer, is with “Promotica of America, Inc.” Given plaintiffs confused testimony and the documents in the record, the court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint, since it is impossible to determine for which entity plaintiff worked or if such entity is a party to this action. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about January 16, 2002, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiffs allegations cannot be determined on the present record on appeal, since plaintiff has failed to include a copy of the complaint, this action is apparently one for age discrimination against plaintiffs former employer. Defendants defaulted and an inquest was held, at which plaintiff testified, variously, that he was employed by “IMG USA” (presumably defendant International Marketing Group, U.S.A.), by “Promotica, Inc.,” by “IMG” (which he stated was International Marketing Group, a company already dismissed from this action), or by “Promotica IMG” in Italy. He further testified that “IMG [is] also known as Promotica, Inc.,” but also testified that Promotica is a subsidiary of IMG. Additionally, plaintiffs purported employment contract, contained in the record on appeal and unsigned by any employer, is with “Promotica of America, Inc.” Given plaintiffs confused testimony and the documents in the record, the court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint, since it is impossible to determine for which entity plaintiff worked or if such entity is a party to this action. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiffman-v-international-marketing-group-usa-nyappdiv-2003.