From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galbraith v. Guida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 3, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


In this latest in a long line of legal disputes arising from the syndication and management of the career at stud of the renowned standardbred stallion Niatross, the 1980 harness horse of the year, defendants moved to dismiss all nine causes of action on the ground that the now-bankrupt syndicate manager, Saratoga, should be joined as a necessary party pursuant to CPLR 1001. The IAS court granted the motion as to the sixth cause of action, which alleged that Saratoga and defendant Guida were guilty of commercial bribery. It should have granted the motion as to the seventh and eighth causes of action, which seek the equitable remedies of judicial reformation or rescission of the purchase syndicate agreement and the purchase and management agreement so as to exclude any provision for the further compensation of defendants Guida, Finder and Finder/Guida Enterprises, Inc. for acting or purporting to act as the syndicate manager and to remove any provision whereby said defendants may further act or purport to act as syndicate manager. Since Saratoga has a property right in the syndication of Niatross as the successor syndicate manager, which right was assigned to it by the designated defendants, it must be joined as a necessary party to any cause of action seeking to rescind or reform the agreements from which its rights arise. Fundamental principles of due process require that a person may not be deprived of property without being accorded notice and an opportunity to be heard. (See, Friedman v. Friedman, 125 A.D.2d 539. ) Rather than dismissing the seventh and eighth causes of action outright, however, plaintiffs should first be given an opportunity, if so advised, to join Saratoga as a party defendant to those causes. (See, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:34, at 38.) Since plaintiffs have not cross-appealed from the dismissal of the sixth cause of action, we leave that unconditional dismissal undisturbed.

We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Galbraith v. Guida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Galbraith v. Guida

Case Details

Full title:CLINT GALBRAITH et al., Respondents, v. LOUIS P. GUIDA et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: May 3, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 592

Citing Cases

Caldwell v. Minarik

The court agrees that Drost and IAMT are necessary parties. (See Galbraith v Guida, 161 A.D.2d 206, 207 [1st…

Berlin v. Sordillo

Clearly the plaintiffs, as the current owners of the property Vincent Sordillo was trying to recover, were…