Wynyard v. Beiny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wynyard v. Beiny

82 A.D.3d 665, 919 N.Y.2d 165

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 665 (Wynyard v. Beiny) 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

Wynyard v. Beiny, 82 A.D.3d 665, 919 N.Y.2d 165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[666]*666Petitioners’ cause of action for a judgment declaring “ACNY the owner of the ‘Z’ goods held by the Liechtenstein Trusts” is barred by the doctrine of the election of remedies (see American Woolen Co. of N.Y. v Samuelsohn, 226 NY 61 [1919]). Petitioners have already been awarded a money judgment equivalent to 45% of the value of the “Z” goods as against respondent Rotraut Beiny, who is the sole beneficiary of the Liechtenstein Trusts (see Matter of Beiny, 16 AD3d 221 [2005]). They now seek a judgment declaring against the same wrongdoer (Rotraut Beiny) based on the same wrongdoing (conversion of the “Z” goods) (see Sabeno v Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc., 20 AD3d 466 [2005]).

To the extent petitioners contend that the election of remedies does not apply because ACNY was never compensated, the contention is without merit. At the time of the aforementioned conversion, petitioners owned 45% of ACNY and respondents owned 55%. Accordingly, petitioners were compensated by the award of a money judgment equivalent to 45% of the value of the “Z” goods. Petitioners’ present contention that ACNY should be declared to own 100% of the “Z” goods not only is inconsistent with the factual basis for the monetary award, but also would result in both a double payment by Rotraut Beiny and a double award to petitioners, who, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, now own 100% of ACNY.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

[666]*666Petitioners’ cause of action for a judgment declaring “ACNY the owner of the ‘Z’ goods held by the Liechtenstein Trusts” is barred by the doctrine of the election of remedies (see American Woolen Co. of N.Y. v Samuelsohn, 226 NY 61 [1919]). Petitioners have already been awarded a money judgment equivalent to 45% of the value of the “Z” goods as against respondent Rotraut Beiny, who is the sole beneficiary of the Liechtenstein Trusts (see Matter of Beiny, 16 AD3d 221 [2005]). They now seek a judgment declaring against the same wrongdoer (Rotraut Beiny) based on the same wrongdoing (conversion of the “Z” goods) (see Sabeno v Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc., 20 AD3d 466 [2005]).

To the extent petitioners contend that the election of remedies does not apply because ACNY was never compensated, the contention is without merit. At the time of the aforementioned conversion, petitioners owned 45% of ACNY and respondents owned 55%. Accordingly, petitioners were compensated by the award of a money judgment equivalent to 45% of the value of the “Z” goods. Petitioners’ present contention that ACNY should be declared to own 100% of the “Z” goods not only is inconsistent with the factual basis for the monetary award, but also would result in both a double payment by Rotraut Beiny and a double award to petitioners, who, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, now own 100% of ACNY.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 665, 919 N.Y.2d 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynyard-v-beiny-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack