Opinion
2012-03-15
MUTUAL BENEFITS OFFSHORE FUND, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Emanuel ZELTSER, et al., Defendants–Appellants,Mark Zeltser, et al., Defendants.Sternik & Zeltser, etc., et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Christopher Samuelson, et al., Counterclaim Defendants.
Sternik & Zeltser, New York (Emanuel Zeltser of counsel), for Sternik & Zeltser. Emanuel Zeltser, New York, appellant pro se.
Sternik & Zeltser, New York (Emanuel Zeltser of counsel), for Sternik & Zeltser. Emanuel Zeltser, New York, appellant pro se. Bruce D. Katz & Associates, New York (Bruce D. Katz of counsel), for Joseph Kay, appellant.Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, New York (Mikhail Ratner and Martin P. Russo of counsel), for respondent.MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered November 4, 2010, which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants Sternik & Zeltser and Joseph Kay's counterclaims, and granted plaintiff's motion to disqualify defendants Emanuel Zeltser and Sternik & Zeltser as counsel for counterclaim-plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Sternik & Zeltser, sued herein solely in its capacity as plaintiff's former counsel, lacks standing to assert a counterclaim in its separate capacity as a purported trustee or representative of an entity that is not a party to the action ( see Ruzicka v. Rager, 305 N.Y. 191, 198, 111 N.E.2d 878 [1953]; see also Bramex Assoc. v. CBI Agencies, 149 A.D.2d 383, 385, 540 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1989] ). Kay lacks standing to assert a counterclaim because the record does not support his allegation that he has an ownership interest in plaintiff's investment or that he otherwise has a stake in the outcome of the dispute over the funds at issue ( see Security Pac. Natl. Bank v. Evans, 31 A.D.3d 278, 279, 820 N.Y.S.2d 2 [2006], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 837, 830 N.Y.S.2d 8, 862 N.E.2d 86 [2007] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.