V. Ponte and Sons, Inc. v. American Fibers International

222 A.D.2d 271, 635 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12822
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 12, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 271 (V. Ponte and Sons, Inc. v. American Fibers International) 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
V. Ponte and Sons, Inc. v. American Fibers International, 222 A.D.2d 271, 635 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about September 15, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for leave to interpose counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court did not err in concluding that the proposed counterclaims clearly lack merit (see, Wieder v Skala, 168 AD2d 355). The breach of contract claim is based on an alleged agreement that defendants attempt to piece together from several, separate writings, which, even considered cumulatively, do not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The writings do not include all the essential items of the contract, and none of them bears the signature of a representative of plaintiff, the party sought to be charged (see, APS Food Sys. v Ward Foods, 70 AD2d 483, 486). The counterclaim based on promissory estoppel also fails, as there is no allegation or evidence of conduct of a kind that would support an estoppel, unequivocally referable to the venture (see, Bon Temps Agency v Towers Org., 187 AD2d 376, [272]*272376-377, Iv denied 82 NY2d 651). The counterclaim sounding in breach of fiduciary duty was properly rejected, as defendants have pleaded only an arm’s length business transaction without special circumstances which might give rise to a fiduciary relationship (see, Mobil Oil Corp. v Joshi, 202 AD2d 318). The counterclaim for unfair competition lacks the requisite elements of either a confidential relation between the parties or a valid agreement to refrain from the alleged unfair competition (see, American Can Co. v Grey Intercontinent, 3 AD2d 908). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Benzies v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 2242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lane v. Tyson
133 A.D.3d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Diplomat Properties, L.P. v. Komar Five Associates, LLC
72 A.D.3d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nemelka v. Questor Management Co.
40 A.D.3d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hustlers, Inc. v. Thomasson
253 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (N.D. Georgia, 2002)
ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC v. Superior Bank, FSB
127 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Illinois, 2000)
Abernathy-Thomas Engineering Co. v. Pall Corp.
103 F. Supp. 2d 582 (E.D. New York, 2000)
CIBC Bank & Trust Co. v. Credit Lyonnais
270 A.D.2d 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
BBS Power Mod, Inc. v. Prestolite Electric, Inc.
71 F. Supp. 2d 194 (W.D. New York, 1999)
Board of Managers of Madison Medical Building Condominium v. Rama
249 A.D.2d 140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
L. Magarian & Co. v. Timberland Co.
245 A.D.2d 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Kantor v. Bernstein
225 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 271, 635 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/v-ponte-and-sons-inc-v-american-fibers-international-nyappdiv-1995.