Solid Transit Inc. v. Venture Opportunities Corp.

256 A.D.2d 127, 681 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 127 (Solid Transit Inc. v. Venture Opportunities Corp.) 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
Solid Transit Inc. v. Venture Opportunities Corp., 256 A.D.2d 127, 681 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about November 18, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answers for failure to comply with a disclosure order, granted the cross motion by the Venture defendants for summary judgment dismissing the action as against them, and granted the cross motion of the Calderon defendants to consolidate the action with another action pending in Queens County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against the Venture defendants absent any showing that they acted improperly in calling in the loan after plaintiff Solid’s default. Plaintiffs, whose relationship to Venture Group is defined by a written security agreement, and who derived a benefit from the foreclosure sale of their medallions, cannot claim unjust enrichment. With the dismissal of the Venture defendants, there is no significant nexus with New York County, the dispute being one between plaintiff Mendez and defendant Calderon over the distribution of the surplus realized at the foreclosure sale, and the transfer of the action to Queens County, for consolidation there with Calderon’s related, previously filed action, was a proper exercise of discretion. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike was mooted by the transfer to Queens, any possible prejudice to plaintiffs being remedied by giving them additional time to appear in the Queens action and staying disclosure pending the transfer and consolidation. We would also note that plaintiffs presumably possess the loan documents and canceled checks for their payments on the subject loan that they seek to discover, that they do not dispute that such payments were made only to defendant Venture Group, and that the identity of the purchasers of the medallions and the price paid therefor at the foreclosure sale are matters of public record. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Ms. H. v. Ms. L.
2007 NY Slip Op 27299 (Nassau Family Court, 2007)
Ms. H. v. Columbia County Department of Social Services
16 Misc. 3d 1034 (NYC Family Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 A.D.2d 127, 681 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solid-transit-inc-v-venture-opportunities-corp-nyappdiv-1998.