successor liability claim (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

successor liability claim in New York

6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Fenton v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 1991 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023Furthermore, defendants could not appeal the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff because they were not aggrieved ( see Fenton v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. , 165 AD2d 121, 125 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 856 [1991]).

2023Furthermore, defendants could not appeal the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff because they were not aggrieved ( see Fenton v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. , 165 AD2d 121, 125 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 856 [1991]).

22
NTL Capital, LLC v. Right Track Recording, LLCgreen
nyappdiv · 2010 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The first exception they identify falls under the “mere continuation” doctrine, and is based on New Tap’s having acquired Tap’s “business location, employees, management and goodwill” (see NTL Capital, LLC v Right Track Rec., LLC, 73 AD3d 410, 411 [1st Dept 2010]).

2013The first exception they identify falls under the “mere continuation” doctrine, and is based on New Tap’s having acquired Tap’s “business location, employees, management and goodwill” (see NTL Capital, LLC v Right Track Rec., LLC, 73 AD3d 410, 411 [1st Dept 2010]).

22
Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co.green
ny · 1983 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013We further hold that Manager has adequately alleged a successor liability claim as against New Tap under three of the exceptions to the general rule that a corporation that acquires another’s assets is not liable for the other’s torts (see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 244-245 [1983]).

2013We further hold that Manager has adequately alleged a successor liability claim as against New Tap under three of the exceptions to the general rule that a corporation that acquires another’s assets is not liable for the other’s torts (see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 244-245 [1983]).

22
Weisberg v. Layne-New York Co.green
nyappdiv · 1987 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(See Elson, 283 AD2d at 116 [finding defendant to be a New York domiciliary despite its incorporation in Delaware since “it maintains its principal place of business in New York and is therefore considered a New York domiciliary for choice of law purposes”]; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550, 551-552 [2d Dept 1987] [“While the defendant is a New York domiciliary by virtue of its having incorporated in New York, for choice-of-law purposes, it must be treated as a New Jersey entity inasmuch as it maintains its principal place of business in that State and thus, it may be said that its

11
Elson v. Defrengreen
nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(See Elson, 283 AD2d at 116 [finding defendant to be a New York domiciliary despite its incorporation in Delaware since “it maintains its principal place of business in New York and is therefore considered a New York domiciliary for choice of law purposes”]; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550, 551-552 [2d Dept 1987] [“While the defendant is a New York domiciliary by virtue of its having incorporated in New York, for choice-of-law purposes, it must be treated as a New Jersey entity inasmuch as it maintains its principal place of business in that State and thus, it may be said that its

11
Francisco v. Sotogreen
nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005“The hallmarks of a de facto merger include: continuity of ownership; cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the acquired corporation as soon as possible; assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the acquired corporation; and, continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets and general business operation” (Fitzgerald v Fahnestock & Co., 286 AD2d 573, 574 [2001]; Arnold Graphics Indus., Inc. v Independent Agent Ctr., Inc., 775 F2d 38 [1985]).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Where else courts name it

CA 10 (2012–2026) MI 10 (2005–2025) IL 7 (1996–2022) NY 6 (2005–2023) NJ 6 (1987–2024) PA 6 (1999–2022) WA 5 (1982–2017) WI 4 (2000–2024) TX 3 (1986–2013) OH 3 (2005–2015) AZ 2 (1992–2024) IA 2 (2015–2019) CO 2 (1992–2011) NV 2 (2019–2019) AK 2 (2017–2017) KS 2 (2018–2026) MN 2 (2003–2015) MA 2 (2005–2008)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check