NETHERBY LIMITED v. TRADEMARK INVESTMENTS LTD (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

NETHERBY LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.V. TRADEMARK INVESTMENTS, LTD., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: May 06, 1999

WILLIAMS, J.P., RUBIN, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS and BUCKLEY, JJ.

Thomas J. Hall, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Karen S. Frieman, for Defendants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 10, 1998, which declared that plaintiff could rescind the subject 1995 settlement agreement only if it returned all the monies it received thereunder, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 8, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

CPLR 3004 does not avail plaintiff since, by its terms, it applies only to rescissions that are sought because of “fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, duress, infancy or incompetency”, whereas here plaintiff seeks to rescind on the basis of a claimed contractual right to repudiate (Walker v. Arpindo Corp., 194 A.D.2d 503, 599 N.Y.S.2d 567; see generally, Cox v. Stokes, 156 N.Y. 491, 506-507, 51 N.E. 316). In any event, we perceive no equities warranting plaintiff's retention of the monies it received under the settlement it now seeks to rescind, and, contrary to its assertion, the “undisputed” monies it received are indeed disputed by defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network