Arrow Louver & Damper Corp. v. Newsday, Inc.
This text of 86 A.D.2d 513 (Arrow Louver & Damper Corp. v. Newsday, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shainswit, J.), entered May 29, 1981, dismissed, without costs, that order having been subsumed in the judgment entered thereon. Judgment of the same court and Justice, entered June 15, 1981, modified, on the law, with costs, to substitute, for the first decretal paragraph thereof, by which the complaint was dismissed, a decretal paragraph to declare that defendant-respondent is not obligated or bound to pay plaintiffs-appellants pursuant to the subcontracts entered into between plaintiffs-appellants and Peck-Morse/ Diesel, and otherwise affirmed for the reasons stated by Justice Beatrice Shainswit at Special Term. “It was error * * * to dismiss the complaint in this action for a declaratory judgment merely because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration sought by them.” (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334), and “the motion [for summary judgment dismissing the complaint] should be taken as defendant’s motion for a declaration in [its] favor and treated accordingly.” (Seigel, New York Practice, § 440, p 584.) (See, also, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3001.13, p 30-97.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
86 A.D.2d 513, 445 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrow-louver-damper-corp-v-newsday-inc-nyappdiv-1982.