Apodaca v. Pine Glen Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Apodaca v. Pine Glen Development Corp.

209 A.D.2d 656, 619 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11735

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated April 19, 1993, which, upon granting the motion by the defendants Pine Glen of New York, Inc., Pine Glen of Rockland County, Inc., Pine Glen of Orangetown, Inc., Pine Glen of Blauvelt, Inc., D.M.O. Properties, Inc., Michael Orecchio, Jr., Ralph Giarnella, and Donna Orecchio for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not err in granting summary judgment to the moving defendants. The mere hope by the plaintiff that he might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process which would demonstrate that the moving defendants could be liable was insufficient to deny summary judgment (see, Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 AD2d 609; Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated April 19, 1993, which, upon granting the motion by the defendants Pine Glen of New York, Inc., Pine Glen of Rockland County, Inc., Pine Glen of Orangetown, Inc., Pine Glen of Blauvelt, Inc., D.M.O. Properties, Inc., Michael Orecchio, Jr., Ralph Giarnella, and Donna Orecchio for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not err in granting summary judgment to the moving defendants. The mere hope by the plaintiff that he might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process which would demonstrate that the moving defendants could be liable was insufficient to deny summary judgment (see, Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 AD2d 609; Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Apodaca v. Pine Glen Development Corp., 209 A.D.2d 656, 619 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 656 (Apodaca v. Pine Glen Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related