Stroud Prods. & Enters., Inc v BMG Music
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 16, 2014
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Gische, JJ.
13801 601798/05
[*1] Stroud Productions and Enterprises, Inc, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, —
v
BMG Music, Defendant, Steven Ames Brown, Defendant-Respondent.
C. Robinson & Associates, LLC, New York (W. Charles Robinson of counsel), for appellants.
Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York (Oren J. Warshavsky of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered October 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Steven Ames Brown's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs' claims for conversion and tortious interference with contract against Brown relating to unpaid producer royalties allegedly due to plaintiffs since 1992 were properly dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiffs may not argue that Brown should be equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations defense since the issue was not raised before the motion court (see Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276 [1988]). In any event, the argument fails because plaintiffs rely on the same acts that form the basis of their underlying claims. It is "fundamental to the application of equitable estoppel for plaintiffs to establish that subsequent and specific actions by defendants somehow kept them from timely bringing suit" (see Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 674 [2006]).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 16, 2014
CLERK
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.
