AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL, plf-ap, v. VENKANY, INC., d/b/a FREDERICK PHARMACY def-res

8467. AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL, plf-ap, v. VENKANY, INC., d/b/a FREDERICK PHARMACY def-res — Helfand & Helfand, New York (Aaron Weissberg of counsel), for ap — Bachu Law Firm, Kew Gardens (Sharmela Bachu of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered March 8, 2012, which, insofar appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its complaint and dismissing defendants' affirmative defenses, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8467. AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL, plf-ap, v. VENKANY, INC., d/b/a FREDERICK PHARMACY def-res — Helfand & Helfand, New York (Aaron Weissberg of counsel), for ap — Bachu Law Firm, Kew Gardens (Sharmela Bachu of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered March 8, 2012, which, insofar appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint and dismissing defendants’ affirmative defenses, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The motion court erred in denying plaintiff summary judgment. Plaintiff established its entitlement to the damages sought, $96,509.53, under the Lease Agreement, the Agreement to Advance Funds and Security Agreement, and defendant Dhama’s guaranties (first, second, third, and fifth causes of action), and to $5,432.84 in attorneys’ fees and disbursements (fourth cause of action). Defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s calculations of the amounts due, and they do not contend that any of the contracts they signed are unconscionable. Plaintiff is also entitled to dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defenses. As to the first, collateral estoppel, it is undisputed that the prior Civil Court proceeding between nonparty (to this action) Parata Systems, LLC (Parata) and Venkany, Inc. was resolved by a stipulation of settlement. “[C]ollateral estoppel is inapplicable if… there has been a stipulation” (Angel v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., 39 AD3d 368, 371 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Robinson v. Crawford, 46 AD3d 252 [1st Dept 2007]). The second affirmative defense, that defendants own the subject equipment, is belied by the clear language of the Lease Agreement.

AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL, plf-ap, v. VENKANY, INC., d/b/a FREDERICK PHARMACY def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal