Rudman v. Cowles Communications

6 Citing briefs

  1. Allianz Risk Transfer, Inc. et al v. Paramount Pictures Corporation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed May 23, 2014

    Finally, rescission is an extraordinary remedy, and in order to obtain rescission, an equitable remedy, the party seeking it must show that (a) “it has no adequate remedy at law,” Rosewood Apartments Corp. v. Perpignano, 200 F. Supp. 2d 269, 272 (S.D.N.Y 2002) (citing Lichtyger v. Franchard, 18 N.Y.2d 528, 537 (1966)), and (b) the status quo may be substantially restored. Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13 (1972). Therefore, rescission is unavailable where damages will adequately compensate the wrong, see New Shows, S.A. de C.V. v. Don King Productions, Inc., 210 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2000), or “where restoration of the status quo ante is made impractical by a substantial change of position . . . or by the nature of the transaction at issue.”

  2. Eugene Palladino, Appellant,v.CNY Centro, Inc., et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed February 18, 2014

    The Defendants made arguments to the Appellate Division based on an already voluminous and well-developed record. CPLR 5613; CPLR 5612(a); Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc, 93 N.Y.2d 860, 688 N.Y.S.2d 94 (1999); Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 94 N.Y.2d 330, 350, 704 N.Y.S.2d 177, 187 (1999); Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 14, 30 N.Y.S.2d 33, 43 (1972). CONCLUSION Since this Court decided Martin v. Curran in 1951, the State Legislature has not seen fit to change the applicable law.

  3. JFK Holding Company LLC, et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Defendants, The Salvation Army, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 16, 2013

    JFK Brief at 33 (u~ oting Hauser v. Western Grp. Nurseries, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 475, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ("Under New York law, writings executed as part of the same transaction are to be read together as part of the same agreement") (citing Rudman v. Cowles Commc'ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1 (1972))). TSA Brief, Point I(A) and (C).

  4. Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-HE4 by HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. DB Structured Products, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint.. Document

    Filed September 27, 2013

    .20 Even if Plaintiff had not contracted away its right to seek rescission, its claim would fail because rescissory relief is available “only when there is lacking complete and adequate remedy at law.” Rudman v. Cowles Commc’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13 (N.Y. 1972). “Plaintiff in this case has pled the ‘adequate remedy at law’ of DBSP’s contractual obligation to repurchase the affected loans at the Purchase Price.”

  5. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al v. Perkinelmer, Inc., et al

    MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 28, 2013

    " In determining whether contracts are separable or entire, the primary standard is the intent manifested, viewed in the surrounding circumstances. '" Nat 'I Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Turtur, 892 F.2d 199, 204 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Rudman v. Cowles Commc'ns, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 42 (1972)). "While a party's 10 Case 1:03-cv-03817-RJS Document 119 Filed 10/28/13 Page 10 of 14 intent is typically a question of fact for the jury, the question is a matter of law for the court if the documents reflect no ambiguity as to whether they should be read as a single contract."

  6. JFK Holding Company LLC, et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Defendants, The Salvation Army, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 16, 2013

    .......................................... 57 Perlbinder v. Bd. of Managers of 411 E. 53rd St. Condo., 65 A.D.3d 985 (1st Dep’t 2009) ................................................................... 33, 34 ix Plant City Steel Corp. v. Nat’l Mach. Exch., Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 472 (1969) ......................................................................................... 41 Prudential-Bache Secs., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 73 N.Y.2d 263 (1989) ......................................................................................... 29 R/S Assocs. v. New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 N.Y.2d 29 rearg denied 98 N.Y.2d 693 (2002) ............................................. 22 Resurgent Capital Servs., LLC v. Mackey, 32 Misc.3d 265 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2011) ..................................................... 46 Riverside S. Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 60 A.D.3d 61 (1st Dep’t 2008) ........................................................................... 22 Rudman v. Cowles Communications, 30 N.Y.2d 1 (1972) ............................................................................................. 34 Rumbaut v. Reinhart, 216 A.D.2d 551 (2d Dep’t 1995) ........................................................................ 54 Schimmel v. Pfizer Inc., No. 0600173/08, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 32388(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Aug. 21, 2008) .................................................................... 30 Schmitz v. MacDonald, 250 A.D.2d 533 (1st Dep’t 1998) ....................................................................... 57 Seabrook v. The City of New York, No. 110643/00, 2002 WL 34358112 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 10, 2002) ..................................................................... 49 Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C. v. Spencer, Maston & McCarthy, LLP, 43 A.D.3d 902 (2d Dep’t 2007) .......................................................................... 49 Sirlin Plumbing Co. v. Maple Hill Homes, 21 N.Y.2d 831 (1968) ........................................