Barham v. Suffolk County Community College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barham v. Suffolk County Community College

266 A.D.2d 172, 697 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11107

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 172 (Barham v. Suffolk County Community College) 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

Barham v. Suffolk County Community College, 266 A.D.2d 172, 697 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered December 7, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Accepting as true the factual averments of the complaint and affording the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom (see, Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract. Although “[m]unicipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid” (Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708; see, Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, 126 AD2d 725, 727), the defendants failed to demonstrate that the [173]*173contract at issue is invalid. More specifically, they failed to demonstrate that funds had not been appropriated for the plaintiffs continuing appointment (cf., County Law § 362 [3]; Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, supra). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered December 7, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Accepting as true the factual averments of the complaint and affording the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom (see, Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract. Although “[m]unicipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid” (Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708; see, Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, 126 AD2d 725, 727), the defendants failed to demonstrate that the [173]*173contract at issue is invalid. More specifically, they failed to demonstrate that funds had not been appropriated for the plaintiffs continuing appointment (cf., County Law § 362 [3]; Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, supra). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 172, 697 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barham-v-suffolk-county-community-college-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack