Weinberg v. Mendelow
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*486With respect to the fraud claim, the complaint adequately alleges, on its agency theory, that defendant Steven Mendelow’s acts can be attributed to defendant Konigsberg, Wolf & Co. (KW), but not to defendant Paul Konigsberg (Konigsberg). It sufficiently pleads that Mendelow was KW’s agent by alleging that KW held Mendelow out as a “principal,” which was akin to a partner. “A legal entity [such as KW] . . . necessarily functions through human actors” such as Mendelow (Prudential-Bache Sec. v Citibank, 73 NY2d 263, 276 [1989]). “[T]he acts of agents [e.g. Mendelow], and the knowledge they…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Riviello v. WaldronNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Kirschner v. KPMG LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Alexander & Alexander of New York, Inc. v. FritzenNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- East Hampton Union Free School District v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- McBride v. KPMG InternationalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Gregor v. RossiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- State of New York Workers' Compensation Board v. WangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- FIA Leveraged Fund Ltd. v. Grant Thornton LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Fulton v. Hankin & Mazel, PLLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.