MAYA NY, LLC, plf-ap, v. DARYL HAGLER def-res

9610-9611. MAYA NY, LLC, plf-ap, v. DARYL HAGLER def-res — Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC, New York (Christopher R. Deubert of counsel), for ap — Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC, New York (Steven A. Weg of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered April 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the third, sixth and ninth (in part) causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the third and ninth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 17, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the fifth and eleventh causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9610-9611. MAYA NY, LLC, plf-ap, v. DARYL HAGLER def-res — Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC, New York (Christopher R. Deubert of counsel), for ap — Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC, New York (Steven A. Weg of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered April 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the third, sixth and ninth (in part) causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the third and ninth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 17, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the fifth and eleventh causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached contractual obligations, or were unjustly enriched, in connection with two transactions. In its third cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendants were unjustly enriched by a $250,000 “loan” made by plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest to the corporate defendant N.E. Development, LLC, at the recommendation of defendant Hagler, the predecessor’s accountant and financial tax planner. Hagler formed N.E. Development as an investment vehicle/tax shelter for his clients. The $250,000 loan was made in June 2004 and, according to plaintiff, defendants orally agreed to repay the loan, with interest at the rate of 13 percent per annum, to plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. Repayment was due June 2005, 12 months after the loan was made. Defendants did not, however, repay the loan in full and plaintiff alleges that it was never notified by Hagler that the money was actually being treated by him as an investment in N.E. Development. Although the motion court applied a six-year statute of limitations, it held that the cause of action was time barred because it accrued on the date that plaintiff made its initial payment in June 2004.

MAYA NY, LLC, plf-ap, v. DARYL HAGLER def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal