Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rosy GUEDJ, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Raymond DANA, Defendant-Appellant,
Prosper Mamane, et al., Defendants. Raymond Dana, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prosper Mamane, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 20, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed appellant's third-party complaint and denied appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims based on the so-called New King Agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Appellant contends that the New King Agreement obligated New King, the parties' closely held corporation, to pay plaintiff 20% of its profits but in no event less than $500 a week for 208 weeks after the agreement's execution, that his only obligation thereunder was to co-guarantee the minimum $500 weekly payments along with third-party defendants, that New King's dissolution necessarily terminated the guarantee, and that plaintiff has no claim because all required payments were made up until the time of New King's dissolution. The IAS court, aptly emphasizing that unlike a straight guarantee of dividends, the New King Agreement provided for plaintiff's receipt of a specified minimum for a specified period regardless of New King's income and expenses, correctly held that the New King Agreement is ambiguous as to whether appellant and third-party defendants were to pay plaintiff $500 for 208 weeks regardless of New King's continued existence. As for the third-party complaint, plaintiff does not have a cause of action for contribution in view of his admission that third-party defendants, not he, made the required payments to plaintiff, and that he never paid his proportionate share thereof (see Panish v. Rudolph, 282 A.D.2d 233, 723 N.Y.S.2d 442). The documentary evidence and admissions in appellant's answer also establish that if third-party defendants misrepresented the agreements in issue as mere releases, appellant became aware of their true nature very shortly after their execution, and that his claims based on such alleged misrepresentations are therefore time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations. We have considered and rejected appellant's other arguments.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 20, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)