New Haven Properties Ltd. v. Grinberg
| Decision Date | 23 April 2002 |
| Citation | 741 N.Y.S.2d 206,293 A.D.2d 386 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | NEW HAVEN PROPERTIES LTD., Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>SERGEY GRINBERG et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
It appears that plaintiff, which finances import-export ventures, deposited $2 million, on behalf of a customer, in an account controlled by defendants, which also finances import-export ventures, and that defendants agreed to return the money to plaintiff in the event a certain letter of credit was not issued. The letter of credit was not issued but defendants refused to return the deposit. At first defendants represented, both in writing and to the court, that they took possession of the deposit to offset a debt allegedly owed them by plaintiff's customer in connection with an unrelated transaction, but defendants now assert that the money was seized by the bank to which it had applied for the letter of credit. Apart from the fact that this revised version of events has no support in and indeed is contradicted by the record, defendants fail to explain their prior admission that they took possession of the deposit, and thus are bound by that admission (see, Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v American Centennial Ins. Co., 89 NY2d 94, 103-104). Defendants' argument that they should be permitted further disclosure so as to show that plaintiff and its customer are alter egos is supported only by conjecture. In any event, defendants cannot offset the subject liquidated, past due liability against the disputed, unliquidated liability it claims against plaintiff's customer (see, Spodek v Park Prop. Dev. Assoc., 263 AD2d 478, 478-479).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correspondent Services Corp v. J.V.W. Inv. Ltd.
...325, 9 Pet. 319, 9 L.Ed. 142 (1835) ("a claim for unliquidated damages cannot be ... set-off"); New Haven Properties, Ltd. v. Grinberg, 293 A.D.2d 386, 387, 741 N.Y.S.2d 206 (N.Y.App.Div.2002) ("defendants cannot offset the subject liquidated, past due liability against the disputed, unliqu......
-
Parlux Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLC
...v. Nautica Apparel, Inc., 298 A.D.2d 330, 331-332, 749 N.Y.S.2d 233 [1st Dept. 2002] ; see also New Haven Props. v. Grinberg , 293 A.D.2d 386, 741 N.Y.S.2d 206 [1st Dept. 2002] ). Thus, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on their royalties counterclaim.D. Supreme Court correctly de......
-
Hack v. Stang
...2003) (quoting Spodek v. Park Prop. Dev. Assocs., 263 A.D.2d 478, 478-79 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)); accord New Haven Props. Ltd. v. Grinberg, 293 A.D.2d 386, 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) ("defendants cannot offset the subject liquidated, past due liability against the disputed, unliquidated liabi......
-
GTD Servs., Inc. v. Lewis
...119 (2d Dept 2005), Fontana v. Fortunoff, 246 A.D.2d 626, 627, 668 N.Y.S.2d 394 (2d Dept 1998), and New Haven Props. v. Grinberg, 293 A.D.2d 386, 387, 741 N.Y.S.2d 206 (1st Dept 2002).The failure of Plaintiff to be properly licensed causes Plaintiff to forfeit any claim for damages. See Mau......