NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 3, 2009
DOUGLAS SCHULTZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
LAURENCE GERSHMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, BONNIE GERSHMAN, DEFENDANT.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered October 10, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant Laurence Gershman's motion to dismiss the cause of action for breach of contract as against him and granted the motion of defendants Omphalius, Caprio, Keay and Mannix to dismiss the cause of action for unjust enrichment as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Gershman's motion, and otherwise affirmed, with costs against Laurence Gershman in favor of plaintiffs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli, Richter, JJ.
The court should not have considered the Bloomberg Finance L.P. report demonstrating the trading history of the subject stock, since it was improperly raised for the first time in Gershman's reply (see McNair v Lee, 24 AD3d 159 ). In any event, the report does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiffs' allegations (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 ). While it demonstrates that the stock was trading in December 2006, it does not conclusively establish that a "liquid, public market" for the shares had developed as that term was defined in the parties' agreements.
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment cause of action is barred by the existence of the contract between the parties (see Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 6 AD3d 295, 296 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.