Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg

111 A.D.3d 529, 975 N.Y.S.2d 335

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 529 (Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg) 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

Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 111 A.D.3d 529, 975 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered January 11, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto (see Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]). The parties pleaded guilty in federal court to identical charges stemming from the underlying bribery scheme.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the adverse interest excep[530]*530tion does not avail it (see id. at 466-467). Apart from plaintiffs guilty plea, the complaint itself demonstrates that plaintiff profited from the bribery scheme.

Plaintiff failed to show that leave to amend the complaint was warranted. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 39 Mise 3d 194.]

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered January 11, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto (see Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]). The parties pleaded guilty in federal court to identical charges stemming from the underlying bribery scheme.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the adverse interest excep[530]*530tion does not avail it (see id. at 466-467). Apart from plaintiffs guilty plea, the complaint itself demonstrates that plaintiff profited from the bribery scheme.

Plaintiff failed to show that leave to amend the complaint was warranted. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 39 Mise 3d 194.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 529, 975 N.Y.S.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teneyck-inc-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack