57th Street East Corp. v. A. Best Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

57th Street East Corp. v. A. Best Corp.

233 A.D.2d 109, 649 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 109 (57th Street East Corp. v. A. Best Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

57th Street East Corp. v. A. Best Corp., 233 A.D.2d 109, 649 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered June 19, 1995, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 15, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without cost.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert detailing the defects in defendant’s work was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff s prima facie entitlement to judgment on its breach of contract claim, inasmuch as the expert had knowledge of the prior condition of the building based upon his review of the contract plans and specifications. Defendant’s opposition was insufficient to avoid summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. [110]*110Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Defendant’s claimed need for discovery in order to oppose the motion is without merit in view of its inaction in failing to seek disclosure over the four years preceding plaintiff’s motion (see, Selznick v Ordan Corp., 202 AD2d 268, 269).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered June 19, 1995, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 15, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without cost.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert detailing the defects in defendant’s work was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff s prima facie entitlement to judgment on its breach of contract claim, inasmuch as the expert had knowledge of the prior condition of the building based upon his review of the contract plans and specifications. Defendant’s opposition was insufficient to avoid summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. [110]*110Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Defendant’s claimed need for discovery in order to oppose the motion is without merit in view of its inaction in failing to seek disclosure over the four years preceding plaintiff’s motion (see, Selznick v Ordan Corp., 202 AD2d 268, 269).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 109, 649 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/57th-street-east-corp-v-a-best-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack