. Debary v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 465 F.Supp.2d 250, 263-64 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (quoting Artwear, Inc. v. Hughes, 202 A.D.2d 76, 615 N.Y.S.2d 689, 692 (1994)). 105 . Subaru Distribs. Corp., 425 F.3d at 124-25 (citing First Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. N.A. Partners, L.P., 260 A.D.2d 179, 688 N.Y.S.2d 25, 27 (1999) and Artwear, Inc., 615 N.Y.S.2d at 693). 106 . Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284, 303 (2d Cir.2006) (quotation marks omitted) (omission in original). Accord Lemer v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273, 294 (2d Cir. 2006). 107 . See, e.g., Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 119 (2d Cir.1982) (dismissing allegations of aiding and abetting liability that are "so broad and conclusory as to be meaningless"); Morin v. Trupin, 711 F.Supp. 97, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>). 108 . See MS/BoNY Mem. at 29-30; RA Mem. at 4
holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum  not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures  and thus them ultimate sentences  were based holding that allegations that the defendants provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the other defendants  in connection with the breaches by such other defendants of duties owed by them to the plaintiffs were too broad to be sustained holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in immediately disqualifying plaintiffs attorney who had filed an affidavit in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment which made specific serious allegations of unethical conduct by defendants attorneys that were essential to plaintiffs claims and could not be proved with other evidence holding that defendants mere allegations of ineffective assistance were insufficient to prevail on such a claim