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.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OXFORD VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents, eClick MD, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 18, 2003, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendants-respondents Oxford Venture Partners, LLC and Karim Rajani, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
In October 2002, plaintiff commenced an action against respondents Oxford Venture Partners, LLC and Karim Rajani and defendants eClick MD, Inc. and Fidelity Transfer Company for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Oxford and Rajani did not answer the summons and complaint, and in early May 2003 plaintiff moved for a default judgment against them. Oxford and Rajani did not submit answering papers. On May 30, 2003, judgment was entered, upon plaintiff's motion, discontinuing the action without prejudice against defendants eClick and Fidelity. Thereafter, by order dated June 17, 2003, the motion court denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against Oxford and Rajani and stayed the action “in view of the fact that the defendant eClick, apparently filed a petition in bankruptcy.”
We reverse. It is well settled that [t]he automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy laws “do not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants” (Maynard v. George A. Fuller Co., 236 A.D.2d 300, 653 N.Y.S.2d 349 [1997]; see also Golden v. Moscowitz, 194 A.D.2d 385, 598 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1993]; Centrust Servs. Inc. v. Guterman, 160 A.D.2d 416, 554 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1990]; 11 USC § 362 [a][1] ). While, under certain limited circumstances, an automatic stay may be extended to non-debtors (see e.g. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61 [1986]; Thomson Kernaghan & Co. v. Global Intellicom, Inc., 2000 WL 640653, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6650 [S.D.N.Y., 2000]; 11 USC § 105[a] ), the record is devoid of any evidence that such circumstances are present here. Therefore, this action may proceed against Oxford and Rajani (see United Airlines Inc. v. Ogden New York Servs. Inc., 305 A.D.2d 239, 761 N.Y.S.2d 16 [2003] ).
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: December 07, 2004
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)