From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kalivia Food Corp. v. Hunts Pt. Coop. Market

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The complaint sought rescission of an agreement modifying a lease, based on an alleged violation of Business Corporation Law § 909 which requires that certain dispositions of the assets of a corporation be approved by two-thirds of the voting shareholders. It is well-settled that while, on a motion to dismiss, the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are accorded every favorable inference, it has also been held that factual claims which are inherently or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to the same consideration ( see, Lipsky v. Price, 215 A.D.2d 102; Zigabarra v. Falk, 143 A.D.2d 901). The documentary evidence in this case establishes that the party who signed the lease modification was in fact the sole shareholder of the plaintiff corporation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, as it was clear from the record that the proposed amendments were lacking in merit ( see, Leibowitz v. Plaza 400 Owners' Corp., 226 A.D.2d 681; Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667). For example, the proposed causes of action sounding in fraud were properly denied, as the plaintiff cannot show any justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations made by the defendant as to the contents of the lease modification agreement ( see, Matter of Mehta v Mehta, 196 A.D.2d 842; Kenol v. Nelson, 181 A.D.2d 863; Sofio v Hughes, 162 A.D.2d 518). There was no evidence of any duress or undue influence exerted on the plaintiff's representative when entering into the lease modification agreement ( see, Muller Contr. Co. v. New York Tel. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 955; Baratta v Kozlowski, 94 A.D.2d 454). The remaining proposed causes of action are also clearly without merit on this record.

Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kalivia Food Corp. v. Hunts Pt. Coop. Market

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Kalivia Food Corp. v. Hunts Pt. Coop. Market

Case Details

Full title:KALIVIA FOOD CORP., Appellant, v. HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 17, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 347

Citing Cases

Scadura v. Robillard

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied. To succeed on a motion…

Pronti v. Smutzinger

Its decision not to accept those terms was within its province in this nonjury trial. Supreme Court acted…