From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Network Mgmt. Serv Group v. Rosenkrantz Lyon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 31, 1995
211 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 31, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).


The IAS Court properly determined that the Underwriting Agreement, dated February 12, 1991, executed solely by the plaintiff and defendant Manchester, and the Agreement Among Underwriters, which, by its terms, became effective only when executed by all five purported underwriters, was not binding upon the moving defendants, who were non-signatories to the Agreements. Their purported agent, defendant Manchester, lacked both actual or apparent authority to bind the defendants. Plaintiff, in opposition to summary judgment, failed to meet its burden by establishing a genuine triable issue of fact by admissible evidence either that the moving defendants had granted Manchester actual authority to execute the Underwriting Agreement on their behalf (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 560, 562), or that the moving defendants, by their words or conduct, had acted in such a manner as to cloak Manchester with the apparent authority to bind any of the moving defendants to the Underwriting Agreement (Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 231).

Plaintiff's claim that Manchester was cloaked with apparent authority fails because all of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff as the basis for its reasonable belief, including the Underwriting Agreement, the Prospectus, and the unsigned Agreement Among Underwriters, were created by Manchester, which cannot, by its own acts, imbue itself with apparent authority to act as an agent on behalf of the moving defendants (Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d, at 231, supra; Legal Aid Socy. v Economic Opportunity Commn., 132 A.D.2d 113, 115). The plaintiff, which failed to make the necessary efforts to discover the actual scope of Manchester's authority, therefore acted at its own peril in assuming that Manchester had authority to act (Ford v. Unity Hosp., 32 N.Y.2d 464, 472).

Plaintiff's speculation that some evidence of Manchester's alleged authority may come to light during discovery is insufficient to bar summary judgment (see, American Prescription Plan v. American Postal Workers Union, 170 A.D.2d 471, 473, citing Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 1023).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Network Mgmt. Serv Group v. Rosenkrantz Lyon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 31, 1995
211 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Network Mgmt. Serv Group v. Rosenkrantz Lyon

Case Details

Full title:NETWORK MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. ROSENKRANTZ LYON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 511

Citing Cases

Breitling v. Boneau Design, Inc.

To hold Badaly liable under the contract on an agency theory, Breitling must show that Boneau Design had…

S S Textiles International v. Steve Weave, Inc.

An agent thus "cannot by his own acts imbue himself with apparent authority." Fleet Bank v. Consola,…