Global Icons, LLC v Sillerman

Annotate this Case
Global Icons, LLC v Sillerman 2007 NY Slip Op 09313 [45 AD3d 457] November 27, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Global Icons, LLC, Respondent,
v
Robert F.X. Sillerman et al., Appellants.

—[*1] Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York City (David J. Stone of counsel), for appellants.

Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP, Los Angeles, Cal. (Edward A. Klein, of the California bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for promissory estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that it agreed to forgo its own attempt to acquire the subject opportunity and facilitated defendants' purchase of the opportunity by advising them on value and participating in review of financial information, in reliance on defendants' oral promise that it would be granted the exclusive right to manage and market the opportunity's products. Such allegations sufficiently show that plaintiff "irremediably" changed its position in reliance on the alleged oral promise (see Woolley v Stewart, 222 NY 347, 351 [1918]), by undertaking acts that were "unequivocally referable" thereto (see Richardson & Lucas, Inc. v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 304 AD2d 462, 463 [2003]), such that it would be unconscionable to deny enforcement thereof (see Steele v Delverde S.R.L., 242 AD2d 414, 415 [1997]). Whether plaintiff's reliance on the alleged promise was reasonable is an issue of fact that should not be decided on this motion to dismiss (see Skillgames, LLC v Brody, 1 AD3d 247, 251 [2003]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Buckley, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.