Legal Opinion
Global Reinsurance Corporation-U.S. Branch v. Equitas Ltd.
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 2009PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bernard J. Fried, J.
Before me is a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (7). The second amended complaint, filed August 6, 2008, sets forth three counts: tortious interference with contract,1 *3violation of the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340), and injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted and the second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), I must accept the pleading’s allegations as true. A more complete statement of the factual…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Pepsico, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Federal Trade Commission v. Staples, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas LtdNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- Global Reinsurance Corporation-U.S. Branch v. Equitas Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011