United Resource Recovery Corporation v. Ramko Venture Management Inc et al, No. 1:2007cv09452 - Document 44 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION:#98002 For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the remaining counterclaims and third-party claims against URRC and Gutierrez are dismissed. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/25/2009) (jfe) Modified on 9/8/2009 (eef).

Download PDF
USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECXONICALiX FILED DOC #: UNITED RESOURCE RECOVERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 07 Civ. 9452 OPINION RAMKO VENTURE MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN KOHUT, Defendants. RAMKO VENTURE MANAGEMENT, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, CARLOS GUTIERREZ, Third-Party Defendant A P P E A R A N C E S : Attorneys for Plaintiff United Resource Recovery Corporation and Third-Party Defendant Carlos Gutierrez PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAM, P.C. 156 West 56t" Street, Suite 803 New York, NY 10019-3800 By: Gary M. Fellner, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Ramko Venture Management, Inc. and John Kohut LLOYD S . CLAREMAN 121 East 6lSt Street New York, NY 10065 Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff United Resource Recovery Corporation ("URRC" or the "Plaintiff") and third-party defendant Carlos Gutierrez ("Gutierrezl'j have moved under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the counterclaims of defendants Ramko Venture Management, Inc. ("Ramko") and John Kohut ("Kohut1'j (collectively, the "Defendants") and the thirdparty complaint of Ramko against Gutierrez. Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the URRC motion is granted and the counterclaims and third-party complaint are dismissed. The resolution of this motion seeking to resoive the dispute between a start-up company, URRC, and Kohut, the sole shareholder and officer of Ramko, over the compensation for services provided by Kohut, turns on whether or not a factual lssue is presented with respect to the existence of an understanding between the parties over their six-year relationship to pay Kohut for certain services allegedly provided. While the question is indeed close, the facts as viewed by Defendants do not present a conflict requiring a trial and fail to establish the understanding asserted by Kohut.

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.