Teneyck, Inc. v Rosenberg

Teneyck, Inc. v Rosenberg 2013 NY Slip Op 07687 Decided on November 19, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2013
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.
11119 650853/12

[*1]Teneyck, Inc., formerly known as Neill Supply Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Robert D. Rosenberg, Defendant-Respondent.




Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (Ernest E. Badway of counsel),
for appellant.
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Willard C. Shih
of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered January 11, 2013, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto (see Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]). The parties pleaded guilty in federal court to identical charges stemming from the underlying bribery scheme.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the adverse interest exception does not avail it (see id. at 466-467). Apart from plaintiff's guilty plea, the complaint itself demonstrates that plaintiff profited from the bribery scheme.

Plaintiff failed to show that leave to amend the complaint was warranted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 19, 2013

CLERK