CHONG MIN MUN, plf-res, SK NEW YORK, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. SOUNG EUN HONG, def-ap

10556. CHONG MIN MUN, plf-res, SK NEW YORK, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. SOUNG EUN HONG, def-ap — Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, New York (Stuart P. Slotnick of counsel), for ap — Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., New York (John D. D'Ercole of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered December 17, 2010, which denied defendant's second motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on defendant's alleged conspiracy with Daniel Lee, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10556. CHONG MIN MUN, plf-res, SK NEW YORK, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. SOUNG EUN HONG, def-ap — Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, New York (Stuart P. Slotnick of counsel), for ap — Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., New York (John D. D’Ercole of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered December 17, 2010, which denied defendant’s second motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on defendant’s alleged conspiracy with Daniel Lee, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

“As a general rule, parties will not be permitted to make successive fragmentary attacks upon a cause of action but must assert all available grounds when moving for summary judgment” (Debevoise & Plimpton LLP v. Candlewood Timber Group LLC, 102 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks and emendation omitted]). Defendant has not demonstrated that any of the exceptions to this rule apply to his arguments that a June 10, 2005 sale and purchase agreement superseded a June 2, 2005 memorandum of understanding (MOU), that he did not prevent plaintiff from redeeming certain real property known as Seoul Plaza on August 18, 2005, and that even if he did, that does not state a cause of action. Furthermore, we disagree with defendant’s contentions that plaintiff (1) conceded that the June 10 agreement superseded the June 2 MOU because he did not oppose this argument below and (2) abandoned his argument that defendant thwarted his attempt to redeem Seoul Plaza because he did not oppose it on appeal.

CHONG MIN MUN, plf-res, SK NEW YORK, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. SOUNG EUN HONG, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal