Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1990 |
| Parties | Ronnie GREENFIELD, et al., etc., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PHILLES RECORDS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A. Peltz, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
A.H. Bart, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ASCH, ELLERIN and SMITH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1988, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), (7) and (8), unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Plaintiffs, the former members of the singing group "The Ronettes", sued the defendants for breach of contract, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty based upon a contract executed between "The Ronettes" and Philles Records in 1963. Defendants' original attorney moved to dismiss the complaint based on CPLR 3211(a)(5). On the original return date of the motion, after opposition had been interposed, the matter was adjourned several times, at the request of the original attorney, who was apparently contemplating making another motion on additional grounds. Prior to the final adjourned date for the hearing of the motion, new counsel was formally substituted. The first motion was not formally withdrawn, however. Rather, new counsel made a separate motion to dismiss based upon CPLR 3211(a)(5), (7) and (8). The ground of lack of personal jurisdiction was asserted with respect to Phil Spector, individually, and Phil Spector Enterprises, Inc. only. The motion was consolidated for disposition and denied. On appeal, defendants argue that the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as against Phil Spector, individually, and Phil Spector Enterprises, Inc., and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action as against the individual defendant. The defendants have apparently abandoned the other limited grounds for appeal stated in their notice of appeal.
A motion on notice is made when a notice of motion or order to show cause is served. (CPLR 2211.) While there is evidence in the record that the original attorney indicated that he was considering moving on additional grounds, he did not do so. Furthermore, the motion was never formally or informally withdrawn by substituted counsel for defendants. The second motion to dismiss was not made within the time prescribed by CPLR 3211(e) for the making of a motion under CPLR 3211(a). Therefore, the hearing court's conclusion that the failure to include the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction in the first motion waived that ground as a defense was correct under the circumstances. "[I]f a defendant makes any CPLR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alarcon v. UCAN White Plains Housing Development Fund Corp.
...motion, served on the 120th day after he filed his note of issue, was timely ( seeCPLR 2211; see also Greenfield v. Philles Records, 160 A.D.2d 458, 459, 553 N.Y.S.2d 771 [1st Dept. 1990] ). Pursuant to the contract between defendants and MSI, MSI agreed to, inter alia, indemnify defendants......
-
State v. Grossberg
...Del.Supr., 619 A.2d 1175, 1179 (1993).12 Sampeer v. Boschma, 369 Mich. 261, 119 N.W.2d 607, 610 (1963); Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 458, 553 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772 (1990); Turner v. State, 187 Tenn. 309, 318, 213 S.W.2d 281, 284 (1948).13 An issue the parties would have been ......
-
Dragons 516 Ltd. v. Knights Genesis Inv.
... ... 2004]; see also Greenfield v Philles Records, 160 ... A.D.2d 458, 459 [1st Dept 1990] [finding that ... citation omitted]; see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, ... Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 148 [2d Dept 1986 ] [explaining ... that a defendant ... ...
-
Eva B., In re
... ... prior determinations directing an in camera inspection of medical records of respondent-respondent maintained by the Payne Whitney Psychiatric ... ...