Case Name: The Apparel Corporation (Far East), Respondent, v. H.J.M. Int'l Corp., Doing Business as H.J.M. International Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2013-12-10
Citations: 112 A.D.3d 466
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Apparel Corporation (Far East), Respondent, v H.J.M. Int’l Corp., Doing Business as H.J.M. International Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 466–466

Head Matter:
The Apparel Corporation (Far East), Respondent, v H.J.M. Int’l Corp., Doing Business as H.J.M. International Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[975 NYS2d 881]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant H.J.M. Int'l Corp.'s motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.
The very bills of lading on which the first and second causes of action are based conclusively establish H.J.M.'s defense to those causes of action (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). The bills of lading fail to show that H.J.M. had anything to do with the shipments they describe. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.