Schultz v. Gershman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schultz v. Gershman

68 A.D.3d 426, 891 N.Y.2d 323

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 426 (Schultz v. Gershman) 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

Schultz v. Gershman, 68 A.D.3d 426, 891 N.Y.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The court should not have considered the Bloomberg Finance L.E report demonstrating the trading history of the subject stock, since it was improperly raised for the first time in Gershman’s reply (see McNair v Lee, 24 AD3d 159 [2005]). In [427]*427any event, the report does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiffs’ allegations (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). While it demonstrates that the stock was trading in December 2006, it does not conclusively establish that a “liquid, public market” for the shares had developed as that term was defined in the parties’ agreements.

Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cause of action is barred by the existence of the contract between the parties (see Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 6 AD3d 295, 296 [2004]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.

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

The court should not have considered the Bloomberg Finance L.E report demonstrating the trading history of the subject stock, since it was improperly raised for the first time in Gershman’s reply (see McNair v Lee, 24 AD3d 159 [2005]). In [427]*427any event, the report does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiffs’ allegations (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). While it demonstrates that the stock was trading in December 2006, it does not conclusively establish that a “liquid, public market” for the shares had developed as that term was defined in the parties’ agreements.

Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cause of action is barred by the existence of the contract between the parties (see Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 6 AD3d 295, 296 [2004]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 426, 891 N.Y.2d 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-gershman-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack