Advertising To Women, Inc. v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Advertising To Women, Inc. v. Kaufman

162 A.D.2d 145, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6976

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

DecidedJune 7, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 145 (Advertising To Women, Inc. v. Kaufman) 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

Advertising To Women, Inc. v. Kaufman, 162 A.D.2d 145, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 21, 1989, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel plaintiff’s compliance with a prior discovery request, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is an action by plaintiff tenant for breach of a lease agreement alleging overcharging and overpayment for electrical charges. Defendant’s opposing papers set forth the relevant lease provisions allegedly justifying the additional electrical charges. Such factors as increased usage, the extension of office hours to weekends, and overtime have yet to be determined. Thus, plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact and the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. (Matter of Universal Underwriters Group [Zeitlin], 157 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1990]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985].) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, 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 June 21, 1989, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel plaintiff’s compliance with a prior discovery request, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is an action by plaintiff tenant for breach of a lease agreement alleging overcharging and overpayment for electrical charges. Defendant’s opposing papers set forth the relevant lease provisions allegedly justifying the additional electrical charges. Such factors as increased usage, the extension of office hours to weekends, and overtime have yet to be determined. Thus, plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact and the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. (Matter of Universal Underwriters Group [Zeitlin], 157 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1990]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985].) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 145, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advertising-to-women-inc-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack