Seven Seventeen Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seven Seventeen Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

32 A.D.3d 802, 821 N.Y.S.2d 561

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 802 (Seven Seventeen Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.) 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

Seven Seventeen Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 32 A.D.3d 802, 821 N.Y.S.2d 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered August 8, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s contract cause of action, alleging that amounts were not properly credited to its account with defendant, did not give notice of the transactions complained of and the conduct resulting in the alleged breach (see CPLR 3013). Although it is clear that the parties’ agreements required compliance with plaintiffs instructions (see 805 Third Ave. Co. v M.W. Realty Assoc., 58 NY2d 447, 451 [1983]), the amended complaint failed to set forth the instructions with which defendant failed to comply. Plaintiff failed to show that any amendment would cure the fatal deficiencies of the amended complaint (see “J. Doe No. 1” v CBS Broadcasting Inc., 24 AD3d 215, 216 [2005]), and failed to submit a copy of any proposed amendment (see Fernandez v HICO Corp., 24 AD3d 110 [2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered August 8, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s contract cause of action, alleging that amounts were not properly credited to its account with defendant, did not give notice of the transactions complained of and the conduct resulting in the alleged breach (see CPLR 3013). Although it is clear that the parties’ agreements required compliance with plaintiffs instructions (see 805 Third Ave. Co. v M.W. Realty Assoc., 58 NY2d 447, 451 [1983]), the amended complaint failed to set forth the instructions with which defendant failed to comply. Plaintiff failed to show that any amendment would cure the fatal deficiencies of the amended complaint (see “J. Doe No. 1” v CBS Broadcasting Inc., 24 AD3d 215, 216 [2005]), and failed to submit a copy of any proposed amendment (see Fernandez v HICO Corp., 24 AD3d 110 [2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 802, 821 N.Y.S.2d 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seven-seventeen-corp-v-jp-morgan-chase-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack