Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Lasertone Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
| Citation | 76 A.D.3d 519,907 N.Y.S.2d 498 |
| Parties | PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., doing business as R+L Carriers, appellant, v. LASERTONE CORPORATION, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thompson Hines, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph B. Koczko of counsel), for appellant.
Harold M. Hoffman, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated October 14, 2009, which granted the defendant's renewed motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's renewed motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint is denied.
In this action, the plaintiff denominates itself as "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc., doing business as R+L Carriers" (hereinafter the plaintiff). In its complaint, the plaintiff alleges that "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc.," is an Ohio corporation which does business in New York under the name "R+L Carriers." The complaint contains four causes of action premised upon the plaintiff's alleged agreement with the defendant to provide carrier services and the defendant's failure to pay amounts due under the terms of their agreement. Thedefendant filed a pre-answer motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, contending that it contracted with an entity other than the plaintiff, namely "R+L Carriers, Inc." In an order dated June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the motion, with leave to renew. In support of the defendant's renewed motion, the defendant submitted two certificates of incorporation establishing that "Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc." and "R+L Carriers, Inc." are separate corporations. In the order appeal from, the Supreme Court granted the renewed motion. We reverse.
Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970; Pike v. New York Life Ins. Co., 72 A.D.3d 1043, 901 N.Y.S.2d 76), the plaintiff adequately alleged the causes of action in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Partners v. Ajw Qualified Partners Llc
-
Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC
...N.Y.S.2d 626Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Lasertone Corp., 76 A.D.3d 519, 520, 907 N.Y.S.2d 498). Initially, the federal income tax documents submitted by the defendants which identified some of the plaintiffs as ind......
-
Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
...L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471; Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Lasertone Corp., 76 A.D.3d 519, 520, 907 N.Y.S.2d 498; JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of N.Y., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802, 803, 893 N.Y.S.2d 237). Although a court may "consider ......
-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Balliraj
...N.E.2d 1190; see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Lasertone Corp., 76 A.D.3d 519, 520, 907 N.Y.S.2d 498; Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 A.D.3d 34, 37–38, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231). The de......