stern pre argument

3

Click here to load reader

Upload: spencer-osborne

Post on 30-Aug-2014

234 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Stern Pre Argument

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

Hon. Barbara R. Kapnick

Index No. 650762/11

PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT

ONE TWELVE, INC. and DON BUCHWALD,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,

Defendant.

: : : : : : : : : :

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x 1. TITLE OF THE ACTION:

The title of the action is set forth above.

2. FULL NAMES OF ORIGINAL PARTIES:

Plaintiff-Appellants are One Twelve, Inc. and Don Buchwald. Defendant-Respondent

is Sirius XM Radio Inc. There has been no change in the parties.

3. NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP Seth D. Rothman, Esq. Stephan E. Hornung, Esq. One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004-1482 (212) 837-6000

4. NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR

RESPONDENT:

KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Gary P. Naftalis, Esq. Michael S. Oberman, Esq. 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 715-9100

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2012 INDEX NO. 650762/2011

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2012

Page 2: Stern Pre Argument

2

5. COURT AND COUNTY FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN:

This appeal is taken from a Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of

New York in and for the County of New York.

6. NATURE AND OBJECT OF ACTION:

This is a breach of contract action seeking money damages.

7. RESULT REACHED IN THE COURT BELOW:

By a Decision and Order entered on April 16, 2012 the Supreme Court, New York

County (Kapnick, J.) granted defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment

and dismissed the action with prejudice.

8. GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVERSAL:

The court below misinterpreted the parties’ contract and granted summary judgment for

defendant before there was any discovery taken in the action. Reversal is warranted because,

among other things, the parties’ contract is clear on its face that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief

they seek or is, at a minimum, ambiguous.

9. STATUS OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING IN ANY COURT:

There are no related proceedings pending.

Dated: New York, New York April 25, 2012

Respectfully submitted, HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP By: /s/ Seth D. Rothman

Seth D. Rothman Stephan E. Hornung

One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004-1482 (212) 837-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs One Twelve, Inc. and Don Buchwald

Page 3: Stern Pre Argument

3

TO: Gary P. Naftalis, Esq. Michael S. Oberman, Esq. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 715-9100 Attorneys for Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc.