Billboard Sportswear, Inc. v. Kapadia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billboard Sportswear, Inc. v. Kapadia

237 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2368

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 135 (Billboard Sportswear, Inc. v. Kapadia) 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

Billboard Sportswear, Inc. v. Kapadia, 237 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered March 8, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for renewal of a prior motion by plaintiff for summary judgment but adhered to the prior determination granting plaintiff’s motion as to the issue of defendants’ liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have never refuted documentary evidence that they agreed to pay for the subject goods and actually made payments for them. Defendants raise only immaterial issues and improperly attempt to avoid summary judgment in the hope that a question of fact will be raised in cross-examining plaintiffs witness (see, Badman v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 91 AD2d 858). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered March 8, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for renewal of a prior motion by plaintiff for summary judgment but adhered to the prior determination granting plaintiff’s motion as to the issue of defendants’ liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have never refuted documentary evidence that they agreed to pay for the subject goods and actually made payments for them. Defendants raise only immaterial issues and improperly attempt to avoid summary judgment in the hope that a question of fact will be raised in cross-examining plaintiffs witness (see, Badman v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 91 AD2d 858). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billboard-sportswear-inc-v-kapadia-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack