From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Netherby Ltd. v. G.V. Trademark Investments, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 6, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


CPLR 3004 does not avail plaintiff since, by its terms, it applies only to rescissions that are sought because of "fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, duress, infancy or incompetency", whereas here plaintiff seeks to rescind on the basis of a claimed contractual right to repudiate ( Walker v. Arpindo Corp., 194 A.D.2d 503; see generally, Cox v. Stokes, 156 N.Y. 491, 506-507). In any event, we perceive no equities warranting plaintiff's retention of the monies it received under the settlement it now seeks to rescind, and, contrary to its assertion, the "undisputed" monies it received are indeed disputed by defendants.

Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

Netherby Ltd. v. G.V. Trademark Investments, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Netherby Ltd. v. G.V. Trademark Investments, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:NETHERBY LIMITED, Appellant, v. G.V. TRADEMARK INVESTMENTS, LTD., et al.…

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

Date published: May 6, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 489

Citing Cases

Rosenblum v. Rosenblum

However, assuming the term were found to be material after trial, any right Bernice had to repudiate the…

Markov v. Katt

The motion court properly rejected Katt's argument that Markov's demand for $100,000 is tantamount to…