Swenvest Corp. v. Wener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swenvest Corp. v. Wener

72 A.D.3d 514, 903 N.Y.S.2d 741

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

DecidedApril 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 514 (Swenvest Corp. v. Wener) 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

Swenvest Corp. v. Wener, 72 A.D.3d 514, 903 N.Y.S.2d 741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J, pursuant to CPLR 9002, upon a decision by Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 30, 2009, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover investment losses, the trial court’s findings, which “rest[ed] in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]), were based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, which showed that the textile finishing plant and its holding company, in which plaintiff and defendants invested, were not fraudulently operated and controlled by defendants. Plaintiff failed to prove that the pricing and credit terms imposed on the plant’s various customers were unreasonable and inured solely to the benefit of other textile companies owned by defendants. The trial court also properly determined that the losses suffered by the plant were not a result of mismanagement or misuse, but were related to market forces.

[515]*515We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J, pursuant to CPLR 9002, upon a decision by Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 30, 2009, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover investment losses, the trial court’s findings, which “rest[ed] in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]), were based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, which showed that the textile finishing plant and its holding company, in which plaintiff and defendants invested, were not fraudulently operated and controlled by defendants. Plaintiff failed to prove that the pricing and credit terms imposed on the plant’s various customers were unreasonable and inured solely to the benefit of other textile companies owned by defendants. The trial court also properly determined that the losses suffered by the plant were not a result of mismanagement or misuse, but were related to market forces.

[515]*515We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 514, 903 N.Y.S.2d 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swenvest-corp-v-wener-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack