Alfred Di Geronimo, Inc. v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alfred Di Geronimo, Inc. v. Board of Education

83 A.D.2d 859, 442 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 859 (Alfred Di Geronimo, Inc. v. Board of Education) 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

Alfred Di Geronimo, Inc. v. Board of Education, 83 A.D.2d 859, 442 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys due on a contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated December 16, 1980, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with the plaintiff that the papers submitted in opposition to its motion for partial summary judgment were conclusory. The record reveals, however, that the papers submitted by plaintiff in support of the motion were also deficient. The defendant, in its answer, asserted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the claim requirements of article 65 of the contract and section 3813 of the Education Law. Since the plaintiff did not in [860]*860any way address these defenses in its motion papers, the papers must be deemed inadequate (see CPLR 3212, subd [b]). The motion was therefore properly denied. Hopkins, J.P., Rabin, Hargett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys due on a contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated December 16, 1980, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with the plaintiff that the papers submitted in opposition to its motion for partial summary judgment were conclusory. The record reveals, however, that the papers submitted by plaintiff in support of the motion were also deficient. The defendant, in its answer, asserted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the claim requirements of article 65 of the contract and section 3813 of the Education Law. Since the plaintiff did not in [860]*860any way address these defenses in its motion papers, the papers must be deemed inadequate (see CPLR 3212, subd [b]). The motion was therefore properly denied. Hopkins, J.P., Rabin, Hargett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 859, 442 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-di-geronimo-inc-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1981.