Armand Cerrone, Inc. v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armand Cerrone, Inc. v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc.

192 A.D.2d 1063, 596 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4067

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 14, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Factual issues exist regarding the terms and conditions of the alleged oral agreement between the parties for the removal of rock at the construction project. Although defendant stated in its answer that an agreement existed, that statement does not constitute an admission that the parties agreed to the specific terms alleged by plaintiff in its complaint. To the contrary, defendant’s statement is consistent with affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by defendant setting forth a conflicting version of the terms and conditions of that agreement. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its fourth cause of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Factual issues exist regarding the terms and conditions of the alleged oral agreement between the parties for the removal of rock at the construction project. Although defendant stated in its answer that an agreement existed, that statement does not constitute an admission that the parties agreed to the specific terms alleged by plaintiff in its complaint. To the contrary, defendant’s statement is consistent with affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by defendant setting forth a conflicting version of the terms and conditions of that agreement. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its fourth cause of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Armand Cerrone, Inc. v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc., 192 A.D.2d 1063, 596 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

192 A.D.2d 1063 (Armand Cerrone, Inc. v. Sicoli & Massaro, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related