Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v Zeltser
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.
Decided on March 15, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered November 4, 2010, which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants Sternik & Zeltser and Joseph Kay's counterclaims, and granted plaintiff's motion to disqualify defendants Emanuel Zeltser and Sternik & Zeltser as counsel for counterclaim-plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Sternik & Zeltser, sued herein solely in its capacity as plaintiff's former counsel, lacks standing to assert a counterclaim in its separate capacity as a purported trustee or representative of an entity that is not a party to the action (see Ruzicka v Rager, 305 NY 191, 198 ; see also Bramex Assoc. v CBI Agencies, 149 AD2d 383, 385 ). Kay lacks standing to assert a counterclaim because the record does not support his allegation that he has an ownership interest in plaintiff's investment or that he otherwise has a stake in the outcome of the dispute over the funds at issue (see Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278, 279 , appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 837 ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...