Legal Opinion

Wynyard v. Beiny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 31, 2011Published

1Opinion of the Court

*666Petitioners’ cause of action for a judgment declaring “ACNY the owner of the ‘Z’ goods held by the Liechtenstein Trusts” is barred by the doctrine of the election of remedies (see American Woolen Co. of N.Y. v Samuelsohn, 226 NY 61 [1919]). Petitioners have already been awarded a money judgment equivalent to 45% of the value of the “Z” goods as against respondent Rotraut Beiny, who is the sole beneficiary of the Liechtenstein Trusts (see Matter of Beiny, 16 AD3d 221 [2005]). They now seek a judgment declaring against the same wrongdoer (Rotraut Beiny) based on the same wrongdoing (conversion…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American Woolen Co. v. . SamuelsohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Sabeno v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  3. Wynyard v. BeinyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API