ACS System Associates, Inc. v. AMCC Corp.

106 A.D.3d 761, 964 N.Y.S.2d 426

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), dated December 15, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs claim is subject to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in the parties’ subcontract, and that the plaintiff failed to comply with this procedure (see Moretrench Am. Corp. v Lib[762] erty Mut. Ins. Co., Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 24, 2009, Pfau, J., index No. 3944/08). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs contention that the defendant is estopped from raising the dispute resolution procedure as a defense is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Ferreira v County of Orange, 34 AD3d 724, 725 [2006]; Crossland Sav., FSB v Friedman, 216 AD2d 351, 352 [1995]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

ACS System Associates, Inc. v. AMCC Corp., 106 A.D.3d 761, 964 N.Y.S.2d 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

106 A.D.3d 761 (ACS System Associates, Inc. v. AMCC Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Ferreira v. County of Orange
34 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Crossland Savings, FSB v. Friedman
216 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)