Autorama Collision, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Autorama Collision, Inc. v. City of New York

247 A.D.2d 313, 668 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1606

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 313 (Autorama Collision, Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Autorama Collision, Inc. v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 313, 668 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about February 17, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s quantum meruit cause of action, and denied as moot plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Recovery upon a quantum meruit theory such as that alleged by plaintiff requires proof that the payment sought was indeed expected (see, Bauman Assocs. v H & M Intl. Transp., 171 AD2d 479, 484). Thus, where, as here, defendants offered evidence that they had been informed by plaintiff that payment would not be made for the towing of certain cars, and [314]*314plaintiff, in. response, offered no evidence to support its contrary contention that payment was in fact expected for the tows in question, an essential element of the cause was properly found to have been negated as a matter of law (see, Spaulding v Benenati, 57 NY2d 418, 425). The IAS Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs quantum meruit cause was, accordingly, entirely correct.

The IAS Court’s prior decision compelling defendants to accept plaintiffs belatedly served complaint, in the course of which the court deemed the quantum meruit cause adequately pleaded, was not the equivalent of a finding pursuant to CPLR 3212 that there were bona fide factual issues requiring trial for determination (see, Baskin & Sears v Lyons, 188 AD2d 307), and in no way precluded the court from entertaining the subsequent summary judgment motion here at issue.

Plaintiffs additional contentions, stemming from a breach of contract theory dismissed in a prior, unappealed order, are not properly before this Court.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about February 17, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s quantum meruit cause of action, and denied as moot plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Recovery upon a quantum meruit theory such as that alleged by plaintiff requires proof that the payment sought was indeed expected (see, Bauman Assocs. v H & M Intl. Transp., 171 AD2d 479, 484). Thus, where, as here, defendants offered evidence that they had been informed by plaintiff that payment would not be made for the towing of certain cars, and [314]*314plaintiff, in. response, offered no evidence to support its contrary contention that payment was in fact expected for the tows in question, an essential element of the cause was properly found to have been negated as a matter of law (see, Spaulding v Benenati, 57 NY2d 418, 425). The IAS Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs quantum meruit cause was, accordingly, entirely correct.

The IAS Court’s prior decision compelling defendants to accept plaintiffs belatedly served complaint, in the course of which the court deemed the quantum meruit cause adequately pleaded, was not the equivalent of a finding pursuant to CPLR 3212 that there were bona fide factual issues requiring trial for determination (see, Baskin & Sears v Lyons, 188 AD2d 307), and in no way precluded the court from entertaining the subsequent summary judgment motion here at issue.

Plaintiffs additional contentions, stemming from a breach of contract theory dismissed in a prior, unappealed order, are not properly before this Court.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 313, 668 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/autorama-collision-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack