Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Polar Communications Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Polar Communications Corp.

278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 182 (Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Polar Communications 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

Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Polar Communications Corp., 278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered April 12, 2000 and July 6, 2000, respectively, which granted ETS, Inc.’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 and dismissed the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon ETS, Inc. by reason of ETS’s purported status as successor to the liabilities of defendant Polar Communications Corporation, plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support its successor liability claim (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v General Housewares Corp., 63 NY2d 291, 296; Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 244-245; Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243). Indeed, but for the plainly insufficient circumstance that the three individuals who formed ETS were once employed by Polar, the pleadings and evidence fail to provide any ground to infer a relationship between ETS and Polar, much less a relationship sufficiently close to serve as a predicate for the imposition of successor liability (see, id.).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered April 12, 2000 and July 6, 2000, respectively, which granted ETS, Inc.’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 and dismissed the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon ETS, Inc. by reason of ETS’s purported status as successor to the liabilities of defendant Polar Communications Corporation, plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support its successor liability claim (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v General Housewares Corp., 63 NY2d 291, 296; Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 244-245; Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243). Indeed, but for the plainly insufficient circumstance that the three individuals who formed ETS were once employed by Polar, the pleadings and evidence fail to provide any ground to infer a relationship between ETS and Polar, much less a relationship sufficiently close to serve as a predicate for the imposition of successor liability (see, id.).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 182, 718 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worldcom-network-services-inc-v-polar-communications-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack