From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 19, 2013
111 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-19

TENEYCK, INC., formerly known as Neill Supply Co., Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Robert D. ROSENBERG, Defendant–Respondent.

Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (Ernest E. Badway of counsel), for appellant. Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Willard C. Shih of counsel), for respondent.


Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (Ernest E. Badway of counsel), for appellant. Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Willard C. Shih of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered January 11, 2013, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto ( see Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446, 464, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941 [2010] ). The parties pleaded guilty in federal court to identical charges stemming from the underlying bribery scheme.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the adverse interest exception does not avail it ( see id. at 466–467, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941). Apart from plaintiff's guilty plea, the complaint itself demonstrates that plaintiff profited from the bribery scheme.

Plaintiff failed to show that leave to amend the complaint was warranted. ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 19, 2013
111 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Teneyck, Inc. v. Rosenberg

Case Details

Full title:TENEYCK, INC., formerly known as Neill Supply Co., Inc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 19, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7687
975 N.Y.S.2d 335