From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2004
6 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2711.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract against defendant USA Networks Interactive LLC (USANI) and to reinstate that claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Folkenflik McGerity, New York (Max Folkenflik of counsel), for appellants.

Friedman, Wang Bleiberg, P.C., New York (Peter N. Wang of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan, JJ.


The complaint adequately alleges that defendant USANI, by sending an e-mail to plaintiffs setting a closing date for its purchase of the remaining 84% of plaintiffs' business, did, in fact, exercise the purchase option accorded it in the parties' June 23, 2000 purchase agreement pursuant to the agreement's terms ( see Kaplan v. Lippman, 75 N.Y.2d 320), and the evidentiary material submitted by USANI on the motion did not conclusively establish the contrary ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88). The contract claims were, however, properly dismissed as to the remaining defendants, which were not signatories to the purchase agreement. Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations that USANI was the alter ego of the non-signatory defendants were insufficient to sustain the action as against the non-signatories, particularly since they were unaccompanied by allegations supporting the inference that USANI was utilized by the non-signatories for fraud, malfeasance or other inequity ( see TNS Holdings, Inc. v. MKI Secs. Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 335; DCA Adv., Inc. v. The Fox Group, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 173). Since the contractual relationship between the parties did not give rise to a fiduciary relationship, the cause of action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty was properly dismissed.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2004
6 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRAINSTORMS INTERNET MARKETING, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 844

Citing Cases

Singind Life Scis. (HK) Ltd. v. Versailles Indus.

Conclusory claims of domination and control are insufficient (see Art Capital Bermuda Ltd. v Bank of N.T.…

Wells v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

Taylor v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 72 AD3d 573; Velasquez-Spillers v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 51 AD3d…