Ninth Space LLC v. Goldman

6 Citing cases

  1. Gur Assoc. v. Convenience on Eight Corp.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23413 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2023)

    (AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank and Tr. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591 [2005] [internal citations omitted]). "[A] defective complaint will not be dismissed where affidavits and other evidence amplify inartfully pleaded but potentially meritorious claims" (Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 192 A.D.3d 594 [1st Dept 2021]). Real Property Law § 231 (1) states, in relevant part:

  2. Feufeu Gu v. Henry

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Likewise, a Court need not accept as true factual claims that are either inherently incredible or totally contradicted by the documentary evidence (Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 A.D.2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999]). However, an unartfully pled Complaint may be amplified on a pre-answer motion to dismiss by affidavits and other evidence evidencing potentially meritorious claims (Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 192 A.D.3d 594 [1st Dept 2021]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 [2017]).

  3. Simmons v. Vill. Plumbing & Heating N.Y. Inc.

    81 Misc. 3d 876 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Although plaintiff's attorney presents the "doctor's note" alleged in the amended complaint, which is actually by a physician's assistant, indicating plaintiff suffered a wound that required sutures, no affidavit authenticates the note on personal knowledge so as to supplement the amended complaint. SeeAG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471 (2005) ; VXI Lux Holdco, S.A.R.L. v. SIC Holdings, LLC , 194 A.D.3d 628, 628, 150 N.Y.S.3d 13 (1st Dep't 2021) ; Ninth Space LLC v. Goldman , 192 A.D.3d 594, 594, 146 N.Y.S.3d 43 (1st Dep't 2021) ; M & E 73-75, LLC v. 57 Fusion LLC , 189 A.D.3d 1, 5, 128 N.Y.S.3d 200 (1st Dep't 2020). Nevertheless, plaintiff alleges that he provided his doctor's note to defendants, which raises a reasonable inference that plaintiff requested a leave of absence to recover from his injury.

  4. Boswell v. The 706 Condo.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 31835 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Likewise, a Court need not accept as true factual claims that are either inherently incredible or totally contradicted by the documentary evidence (Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 A.D.2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999]). However, an inartfully plead Complaint may be amplified on a pre-answer motion to dismiss by affidavits and other evidence evidencing potentially meritorious claims (Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 192 A.D.3d 594 [1st Dept 2021]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 [2017]).

  5. Ninth Space LLC v. Goldman

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30532 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    This case involves the failure of two Brother Jimmy's BBQ restaurants. Plaintiffs' only remaining claim against Bluestone is for fraudulent conveyance (Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 192 A.D.3d 594 [1st Dept 2021]). The crux of Plaintiffs' claim against Bluestone is that Bluestone engineered a preferential transfer of assets from Defendant Dining Entertainment Group LLC to Bluestone and Defendant James Goldman during the pendency of this case.

  6. PJSC Nat'l Bank Tr. v. Pirogova

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 30367 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Priestley, of course, is not contrary to Federal Deposit, which rejected the viability of an aiding and abetting fraudulent conveyance claim (id. at *6) and the complaint does not allege a possible exception to this rule (Ninth Space LLC v Goldman, 192 A.D.3d 594 [1st Dept 2021]; see BBCN Bank v 12th Ave. Rest. Grp. Inc., 150 A.D.3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2017]). For instance, unlike with Dubrovsky and Pirogova, there is no alleged basis for any alter-ego finding based on piercing the corporate veils of FGP and MIC (D'Mel & Assoc, v Athco, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2013]; see Cantor Fitzgerald, 132 A.D.3d at 402; see also South College, 199 A.D.3d 431-32)