Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Stern Pre Argument

Stern Pre Argument

Ratings: (0)|Views: 231 |Likes:
Published by Spencer Osborne

More info:

Published by: Spencer Osborne on Apr 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – xHon. Barbara R. Kapnick Index No. 650762/11
ONE TWELVE, INC. and DON BUCHWALD,Plaintiffs,-against-SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,Defendant.::::::::::– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x1.
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-Respondentis 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 LLPSeth D. Rothman, Esq.Stephan E. Hornung, Esq.One Battery Park PlazaNew York, New York 10004-1482(212) 837-60004.
NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FORRESPONDENT:KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLPGary P. Naftalis, Esq.Michael S. Oberman, Esq.1177 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10036(212) 715-9100
INDEX NO. 650762/2011NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2012
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 judgmentand dismissed the action with prejudice.8.
GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVERSAL:The court below misinterpreted the parties’ contract and granted summary judgment fordefendant 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, 2012Respectfully submitted,HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLPBy: /s/ Seth D. RothmanSeth D. RothmanStephan E. HornungOne Battery Park PlazaNew York, New York 10004-1482(212) 837-6000
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs One Twelve, Inc. and  Don Buchwald 

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->