D'Artagnan, LLC v. Sprinklr Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Caro Capital, LLC v. Koch

    20-cv-6153 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    First, as Plaintiffs point out, the email exchange, viewed in its entirety, does not demonstrate that there was an agreement reached between John and Koch as to the split of Jupiter ownership. See D'Artagnan, LLC v. Sprinklr Inc., 144 N.Y.S.3d 177, 179 (1st Dep't 2021) (“A contract is unenforceable if there is no meeting of the minds ....” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The initial email in the exchange-which appears to contain the subject line “Caro, ” not “Jupiter” or “CBD Brands”-speaks in generalities about John and Koch's “current situation” and, while naming CBD Brands alongside other deals, discusses the sixty-forty split without reference to any particular project or client. See Dkt. No. 79, Ex. 1 at 2.

  2. Ray v. Ray

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    all (see D'Artagnan, LLC v Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 476-477 [1st Dept 2021]; Kowalchuk v Stroup, 61 A.D.3d 118, 121 [1st Dept 2009]). Although the scope of the alleged agreement is ostensibly within the scope of question two on the verdict sheet, which the jury did not reach, it is not possible to determine the existence of an enforceable agreement without deciding whether the parties mutually assented to all essential terms.

  3. Polymetcor Trading SA v. Traxys N. Am.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Here, in addition to the fact that all three purchase contracts were not countersigned by plaintiff, email correspondence between the parties indicates that plaintiff further negotiated the purchase contract and proposed its own form of contract within 10 days after receiving defendant's purchase contracts. Therefore, there was no "meeting of the minds" between the parties on defendants' purchase contracts containing the limitations clause (see D'Artagnan v Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 476-477 [1st Dept 2021]; Silber at 439-440).

  4. Paleja v. KP NY Operations LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2990 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Defendants contend that Paleja's unjust enrichment claim fails "because there is a valid and enforceable operating agreement governing the subject matter of [the] claim[s]" (see D'Artagnan, LLC v Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 477 [1st Dept 2021]). However, in the event Paleja's agreement to purchase stock is deemed unenforceable, one or more of the defendants may have been unjustly enriched.

  5. Chan v. Havemeyer Holdings LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    By contrast, TC Havemeyer did not owe a fiduciary duty to plaintiff Yuca Capital Partners LP, which, unlike the Individual Plaintiffs, was not a preexisting investor. Because the plain language of section 4 says Yuca is relying solely on the Offering Materials, as a matter of law, Yuca could not have relied on defendant Nicholas Silvers' statement that the refinancing was "already done" (see D'Artagnan, LLC v. Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 476-477 [1st Dept 2021]). Rather, Yuca should have exercised a heightened degree of diligence after receiving conflicting statements (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. AmÉrica MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 279 [2011] ["When the party to whom a misrepresentation is made has hints of its falsity, a heightened degree of diligence is required of it.

  6. Fast Track Constr. Sys. v. Turken Found.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33929 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    A contract is unenforceable due to no meeting of the minds if "the parties understand the contract's material terms differently." D 'Artagnanv.Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 476-77 (1st Dept. 2021).

  7. Mangold Mate, LLC v. Metabook, Inc.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32588 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Compl ¶5; Boydell Aff¶¶ 18-21,25, 27. These alleged representations are nowhere to be found in the Publishing Contract and any claims for breach of contract based on these representations must be dismissed (see D'Artagnan, LLC v Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 477 [1st Dept 2021]). In opposing the motion, the plaintiff does not cite to any language in the Publishing Contract which obligated Metabook to pay the identical amount of cash towards the project as the plaintiff paid.

  8. Moghtaderi v. Apis Capital Advisors, LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32339 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    At best for plaintiff, there was no meeting of the minds as to what was supposed to be used to calculate Excess Net Income. Without a meeting of the minds, plaintiff cannot enforce his version of the agreement (D'Artagnan, LLC v. Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 476-77 [1st Dept 2021], citing Gessin Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. 95 Wall Assoc., LLC, 74 A.D.3d 516, 518 [1st Dept 2010]).

  9. Gaon Wellness Acupuncture Physical Therapy & Chiropractic PLLC v. Kim Jiae Ae

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30689 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    It is well established that courts may look to extrinsic evidence to resolve inconsistencies or ambiguity in a contract (Gessin Elec. Contrs., Inc. v 95 Wall Assoc., LLC, 74 A.D.3d 516, 518 [1st Dept 2010]). A contract is unenforceable when there is no meeting of the minds (D'Artagnan v Sprinklr Inc., 192 A.D.3d 475, 477 [1st Dept 2021]). To find that there is no meeting of the minds the First Department has held that the material terms of the contract must be "so obscure and ambiguous that it is impossible to ascertain" the intentions of the parties.