Gloria Vanderbilt Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 09 May 1995 |
| Parties | GLORIA VANDERBILT HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gloria Vanderbilt COOPER, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M.H. Fishman, for plaintiff-respondent.
L.A. Craco, for defendants-appellants.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and ASCH, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about March 4, 1994, which granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Panel of the First Department's Departmental Disciplinary Committee with respect to defendant Cooper's former attorney, who was a shareholder in the plaintiff corporation, were not entitled to preclusive effect with respect to the instant action in which the plaintiff corporation sought damages and an injunction enjoining defendants from tortiously interfering with its contractual relations with its licensees, from interfering with its prospective economic advantage, from unfairly competing and from committing commercial defamation, since defendants failed to establish an identity of issue which had necessarily been decided in the prior action and that there was a full and fair opportunity for plaintiff to contest the decision now claimed to be controlling (Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 291, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49, 423 N.E.2d 807). The issues decided in the disciplinary action pertained to the attorney's fitness to practice law and did not determine the validity and enforceability of agreements defendant Cooper entered into relinquishing entitlement to licenses for her name. Moreover, plaintiff corporation was not a party to the disciplinary proceeding and the attorney did not appear at those proceedings as a member of the corporation. Further, the corporation was not in privity with the attorney, who was a minority shareholder, and who was not in control of the company's day to day operations (see, Matter of Delford Indus. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 171 A.D.2d 941, 566 N.Y.S.2d 984; see also, Samhammer v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 120 A.D.2d 59, 507 N.Y.S.2d 499). As the Supreme Court also found, the proposed defense of fraudulent misconduct was time-barred and was not revived by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Zois, Bankruptcy No. 95-41543 (BRL). Adversary No. 98-8101A.
...A to Z Assocs. v. Cooper, 215 A.D.2d 161, 626 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y.App.Div.1995); Gloria Vanderbilt Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Cooper, 215 A.D.2d 162, 626 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y.App.Div.1995); Matter of Andrews, 184 A.D.2d 195, 591 N.Y.S.2d 406 (N.Y.App.Div.1992), lv. denied, 81 N.Y.2d 912, 597 N.Y.......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest
...There was no actual determination of Hartford's coinsurance obligation before Justice Cohen (see, Gloria Vanderbilt Home Furnishings v. Cooper, 215 A.D.2d 162, 162-163, 626 N.Y.S.2d 135; Merchants & Business Men's Mut. Ins. v. Savemart, 213 A.D.2d 607, 609, 624 N.Y.S.2d 623). In the second ......
-
A to Z Associates v. Cooper
... ... Gloria V. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, ... Seligco, ... on the counterclaims relating to Gloria Concepts, Inc. Concerning the fourth and fifth counterclaims, appellant ... ...
-
Norman Nick, Individually, And, the Ashley Grp. & the Mast Grp. Inc. v. Schneider
...Storman v. Storman, 90 A.D.3d at 897, quoting Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d at 349. In Gloria Vanderbilt Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Cooper, 215 A.D.2d 162, the Appellate Division, First Department held that the trial court had properly determined that the findings and conc......