Bianco v. Shareholders Communication Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bianco v. Shareholders Communication Corp.

223 A.D.2d 617, 637 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 617 (Bianco v. Shareholders Communication Corp.) 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

Bianco v. Shareholders Communication Corp., 223 A.D.2d 617, 637 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 23, 1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the contract at issue "was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made” (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10). In addition, this was not one of those exceptional cases in which "a provision of the contract is so outrageous as to warrant holding it unenforceable on the ground of substantive unconscionability alone” (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra, at 12). In fact, the defendant submitted evidence in support of its cross motion for summary judgment establishing that the price charged was not excessive. Since this evidence was unrefuted by the plaintiffs, a hearing on the issue of unconscionability was not warranted (cf., Matter of State of New York v Avco Fin. Serv., 50 NY2d 383, 390; State of New York v Wolowitz, 96 AD2d 47, 68-69). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, 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 unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 23, 1995, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the contract at issue "was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made” (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10). In addition, this was not one of those exceptional cases in which "a provision of the contract is so outrageous as to warrant holding it unenforceable on the ground of substantive unconscionability alone” (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra, at 12). In fact, the defendant submitted evidence in support of its cross motion for summary judgment establishing that the price charged was not excessive. Since this evidence was unrefuted by the plaintiffs, a hearing on the issue of unconscionability was not warranted (cf., Matter of State of New York v Avco Fin. Serv., 50 NY2d 383, 390; State of New York v Wolowitz, 96 AD2d 47, 68-69). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 617, 637 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bianco-v-shareholders-communication-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack