Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1997 |
| Parties | AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRO TRAVEL, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bennett H. Last, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Barry Roberts, Donal A. Meyers, for Defendants-Respondents.
Before ELLERIN, J.P., and WALLACH, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 27, 1996, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for plaintiff's lack of standing to sue as a real party in interest, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint reinstated.
Plaintiff is in the business of accrediting travel agents in the United States for the sale of world wide air transportation tickets and ancillary travel services. Its program is accomplished through a computerized system known as the Agent's Standard Ticket and Area Settlement Plan. Pursuant to this Plan, travel agents enter into a formal Agent Reporting Agreement whereby plaintiff, authorized under separate agreement with commercial air carriers, furnishes the agents with blank accountable standard forms to be issued as airline tickets and other travel instruments. In exchange, the agents report their sales and remit all proceeds to plaintiff on a weekly basis.
The instant action is against one such travel agency for failure to account for the sale of some $250,000 worth of tickets, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary obligation, negligent failure to supervise employees, and fraud.
A contracting party generally has a right to maintain an action in its own name (CPLR 1004). Plaintiff was not some stranger whose only connection to these transactions was by power of attorney (cf., Spencer v. Standard Chems. and Metals Corp., 237 N.Y. 479, 143 N.E. 651). Notwithstanding its status as a clearinghouse for the airlines, plaintiff had independent authority and its own beneficial interest in this business (see, Watts v. Phillips-Jones Corp., 211 App.Div. 523, 207 N.Y.S. 493, affd. 242 N.Y. 557, 152 N.E. 425). Plaintiff's agreement with the carriers permitted such independence of operation, and defendant, by signing onto the Plan, agreed to conduct all its business with respect to those carriers exclusively through plaintiff (see, Jarach v. Ocean Carriers Corp., 9 A.D.2d 646, 191 N.Y.S.2d 407).
In short, pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haberberg v. G.F.A. Advanced Sys. Ltd.
...(see generally Centaur Props., LLC v. Farahdian, 29 A.D.3d 468, 817 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept.2006] ; Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, 239 A.D.2d 233, 657 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1st Dept.1997] ). York 97, LLC, the entity to which Sanit 1024's property was transferred, has standing and capacity to ......
-
Brighton Inv. v. Har–zvi
...defense. “A contracting party generally has a right to maintain an action in its own name” ( Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, 239 A.D.2d 233, 234, 657 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1997]; see CPLR 1004). Both the 2004 MOU and the 2005 MOU identify plaintiff as the contracting party, defendant dealt ......
- Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ S.A.
-
Kier Construction, Ltd. v. Raytheon Company, Civil Action No. 19526 (DE 3/10/2005)
...Banana Co. v. Venezolana Int'l de Aviacion, 411 N.Y.S.2d 889, 894-95 (App. Div. 1979). 60. See Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, Inc., 657 N.Y.S.2d 654, 655 (App. Div. 1997) (plaintiff, a clearinghouse for the airlines, was a real party in interest and could bring action against trave......