Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick

7 Citing cases

  1. Republic of Turk v. Christie's Inc.

    527 F. Supp. 3d 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Myriad district courts have concluded that a finding of bad faith is required to justify invocation of the unclean hands doctrine. SeeDeere & Co. v. MTD Holdings, Inc., No. 00-CV-5936 (LMM), 2004 WL 1794507, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2004) ("It is undisputed that an unclean hands defense requires a finding of bad faith."); Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick , No. 00-CV-3856 (SHS), 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) ("[A]n unclean hands defense requires a finding of bad faith which the Court has declined to do."); Obabueki v. IBM , 145 F. Supp. 2d 371, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (noting that the "unclean hands defense requires a finding of bad faith."). The doctrine is not lightly invoked.

  2. Cartier Int'l AG v. Motion in Time, Inc.

    12 Civ. 8216 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2013)   Cited 5 times

    Because Defendant's Answer offers no indication of how the doctrines of unclean hands and entrapment would bar Plaintiffs' claims, the motion to strike Defendant's second affirmative defense is granted. See Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00 Civ. 3856 (SHS), 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (striking the unclean hands defense because "mere pleading of the defense . . . without more is insufficient"). CONCLUSION

  3. Solis v. Beacon Assocs. Mgmt. Corp.

    09 Civ. 777 (LBS) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011)

    Defendants plead in conclusory terms that the Secretary's claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands; "mere recitation of the legal buzzwords, however, will not suffice." Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Veneglia, No. 94 Civ. 1400, 1997 WL 135946, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 1997) (striking defenses of estoppel and laches); Obabueki, 145 F. Supp. 2d at 401 ("Pleading the words 'unclean hands' without more . . . is not a sufficient statement of such defense."); Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00 Civ. 3856 (SHS), 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (striking estoppel, laches, and unclean hands defenses on grounds that "mere pleading of the defense . . . without more is insufficient"). Were the Court to permit Defendants to amend their Answers to include the factual allegations contained in their opposition briefs, Defendants do not allege facts that would support an estoppel, laches, or unclean hands defense.

  4. Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Pontin

    607 F. Supp. 2d 378 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 20 times

    Therefore, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact regarding the "curability" of defendants' alleged misfeasance preclude summary judgment on both plaintiff and defendants' respective breach of contract claims. See, e.g., Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00 Civ. 3856 (SAS), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16164, at *38 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (factual dispute regarding ability to cure would have precluded summary judgment had the contract at issue not been validly terminated on separate grounds); U.S. West Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Marine Midland Realty Corp., et al, 810 F. Supp. 1393, 1404 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ("disputed issues of fact as to whether [breaching party] was entitled to notice of or could have cured any default" precluded summary judgment); Lanvin, Inc. v. Colonia,Inc., 776 F. Supp. 125, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (summary judgment unwarranted where whether defaulting party could have cured default presented issues of fact); 1537 Assocs. v. Temlex Indus., 128 A.D.2d 384, 386 (N.Y.App.Div. 1987) (overturning lower court decision because "[t]riable issues of fact precluding summary judgment [we]re presented as to whether . . . a notice was not required because the [appellee's] alleged default and wrongful course of conduct constituted an incurable breach"). Similarly, the disputed issues of fact on that issue preclude summary ju

  5. Federal National Mtge. Assoc. v. Olympia Mtge. Corp.

    04 CV 4971 (NG) (MDG), 04 CV 4971 (NG) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2007)

    Counterclaim at 17, ¶ 2. Merely pleading a defense, without factual allegations, is insufficient. Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00-3856, 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); Obabueki v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 145 F. Supp. 2d 371, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Here, Pinter identifies no bases for the defenses he asserts.

  6. Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick

    00 Civ. 3856 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2002)   Cited 18 times
    Reducing fee award by 50% due in part to excessive billing

    Following the conclusion of discovery proceedings, Daiwa moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. This Court granted Daiwa's motion for summary judgment in its entirety and judgment was subsequently entered in Daiwa's favor in the amount of $6,333,072. See Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00 Civ. 3856, 2002 WL 1997922 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002). Daiwa now moves for costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 1 of the guaranty, in which Desnick "agrees to pay any and all reasonable costs and expenses (including reasonable counsel fees and expenses) paid or incurred in enforcing any rights under this Guaranty."

  7. In re Enron Corp.

    292 B.R. 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that where the parties “engaged in arm's length negotiations” and the contract disclaims reliance on information provided by the other party, no claim can be stated for breach of fiduciary duty

    However, the unique circumstances that existed in Bank of China do not exist in this case. As the court in Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, Civ. 00-3856, 2002 WL 1997922, at *10, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16164, at *32 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) explained, so too does this Court conclude:         Assuming arguendo that an implied duty of good faith exists, this Court would still find for HVB.