Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty

111 A.D.3d 588, 974 N.Y.S.2d 294

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 588 (Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty) 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

Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty, 111 A.D.3d 588, 974 N.Y.S.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 14, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. The evidence relied upon by the defendants was not “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Pasquaretto v Long Is. Univ., 106 AD3d 794, 795 [2013]; Cives Corp. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 97 AD3d 713, 714 [2012]; [589]*589Jones v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 96 AD3d 1014, 1017 [2012]). Moreover, dismissal was not warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), since the evidence did not show that any material fact alleged by the plaintiff was not a fact at all or that no significant dispute exists regarding it (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Constructamax, Inc. v Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 109 AD3d 574 [2013]; Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 108 AD3d 634, 636 [2013]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 14, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. The evidence relied upon by the defendants was not “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Pasquaretto v Long Is. Univ., 106 AD3d 794, 795 [2013]; Cives Corp. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 97 AD3d 713, 714 [2012]; [589]*589Jones v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 96 AD3d 1014, 1017 [2012]). Moreover, dismissal was not warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), since the evidence did not show that any material fact alleged by the plaintiff was not a fact at all or that no significant dispute exists regarding it (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Constructamax, Inc. v Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 109 AD3d 574 [2013]; Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 108 AD3d 634, 636 [2013]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 588, 974 N.Y.S.2d 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/approved-oil-co-of-brooklyn-inc-v-realty-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack