622 Building Co., L. L. C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

622 Building Co., L. L. C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

283 A.D.2d 202, 724 N.Y.S.2d 300, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4787

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability on its first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to submit any evidence to support its assertion, made in detail for the first time on appeal, that it was unreasonably barred by plaintiff from moving out of the subject building during regular business hours. Defendant has also failed to offer evidence supporting its assertion that its employees signed invoices for the disputed charges under duress (see, Kranitz v Strober Org., 181 AD2d 441). We have not given any weight to the affidavit of defendant’s employee offered for the first time on sur-reply, even though we earlier declined to strike that affidavit from the record. In any event, that affidavit would not warrant a different result. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability on its first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to submit any evidence to support its assertion, made in detail for the first time on appeal, that it was unreasonably barred by plaintiff from moving out of the subject building during regular business hours. Defendant has also failed to offer evidence supporting its assertion that its employees signed invoices for the disputed charges under duress (see, Kranitz v Strober Org., 181 AD2d 441). We have not given any weight to the affidavit of defendant’s employee offered for the first time on sur-reply, even though we earlier declined to strike that affidavit from the record. In any event, that affidavit would not warrant a different result. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

622 Building Co., L. L. C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 283 A.D.2d 202, 724 N.Y.S.2d 300, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 202 (622 Building Co., L. L. C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related