Bancker Construction Corp. v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bancker Construction Corp. v. County of Suffolk

204 A.D.2d 1067, 614 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1067 (Bancker Construction Corp. v. County of Suffolk) 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

Bancker Construction Corp. v. County of Suffolk, 204 A.D.2d 1067, 614 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unani[1068]*1068mously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on its breach of contract cause of action. In support of its motion, plaintiff admitted that, during the course of performing the parties’ contract, it broke an electric service line that caused defendant to sustain damages and that it refused to reimburse defendant for those damages. Additionally, plaintiff acknowledged that defendant had refused to pay the balance due under the contract because of its refusal to reimburse those damages. Plaintiff’s submission on the motion did not establish plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The conclusory assertions of plaintiff’s secretary that plaintiff fully performed all of its obligations under the contract are insufficient to support the granting of summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Republic Natl. Bank v Luis Winston, Inc., 107 AD2d 581, 582). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Oshrin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unani[1068]*1068mously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on its breach of contract cause of action. In support of its motion, plaintiff admitted that, during the course of performing the parties’ contract, it broke an electric service line that caused defendant to sustain damages and that it refused to reimburse defendant for those damages. Additionally, plaintiff acknowledged that defendant had refused to pay the balance due under the contract because of its refusal to reimburse those damages. Plaintiff’s submission on the motion did not establish plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The conclusory assertions of plaintiff’s secretary that plaintiff fully performed all of its obligations under the contract are insufficient to support the granting of summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Republic Natl. Bank v Luis Winston, Inc., 107 AD2d 581, 582). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Oshrin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 1067, 614 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bancker-construction-corp-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack