From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CSC Holdings v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
192 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

Index No. 655424/18 Appeal No. 13409 Case No. 2020-04154

03-23-2021

CSC Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellant. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Richard W. Mark of counsel), for respondent.


Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (James M. Catterson of counsel), for appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Richard W. Mark of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.) entered on or about September 8, 2020, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's pre-answer CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the claim for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), pleadings are to be afforded a liberal construction, allegations are taken as true, the plaintiff is afforded every possible favorable inference, and a determination is made only as to whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Viewed through this prism, the complaint and attached documents state a cause of action for breach of contract, based upon its allegations of defendant's failure to comply with the provisions of the parties' master sales agreement requiring it to indemnify plaintiff against claims of patent infringement, and to procure and make royalty payments for all intellectual property rights associated with the supplied products. The scope of defendant's license procurement and indemnification obligation under the master sales agreement is subject to differing interpretations and cannot be resolved on a pre-answer motion to dismiss. The court's role is not to determine whether the plaintiff will ultimately be successful on the claim (see Morgan Stanley Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC, 143 AD3d 1, 7 [1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 23, 2021


Summaries of

CSC Holdings v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
192 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

CSC Holdings v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

Case Details

Full title:CSC Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samsung Electronics America…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1717
146 N.Y.S.3d 17

Citing Cases

Novum Energy Trading Inc. v. TransMontaigne Operating Co. L.P.

The existence of contractual ambiguity is "detected claim by claim," through exanimation of the entire…

Upfront Megatainment, Inc. v. Thiam

Further, defendant failed to submit any documentary evidence that conclusively refutes the allegation in the…