You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not show that there was a continuity of ownership such that, pursuant to the de facto merger doctrine, the assets of defendant NYP Ag should be used to satisfy a judgment against NYP Management:

“Traditionally, courts have considered several factors in determining whether a de facto merger has occurred: (1) continuity of ownership; (2) a cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the predecessor as soon as practically and legally possible; (3) assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the predecessor; and (4) a continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation” … . …

… [C]ourts have flexibility in determining whether a transaction constitutes a de facto merger. While factors such as shareholder and management continuity will be evidence that a de facto merger has occurred . . . , those factors alone should not be determinative” … . … “[I]n non-tort actions, continuity of ownership is the essence of a merger’ ” … , and is a necessary predicate to finding a de facto merger…  Here, inasmuch as [plaintiff] failed to establish continuity of ownership, it failed to establish that there was a de facto merger between the two corporations … . R&D Electronics, Inc. v NYP Mgt., Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04151, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CORPORATION LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DE FACTOR MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS ASSAULT CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT DENIED ASSAULTING THE VICTIM AT TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
ORDER ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL TWO SEX OFFENDER WAS DEFECTIVE; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Testify Before the Grand Jury
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WAS BEING PAID BY HIS FAMILY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE... DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION...