Bladykas v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bladykas v. County of Nassau

47 A.D.3d 652, 848 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 652 (Bladykas v. County of Nassau) 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

Bladykas v. County of Nassau, 47 A.D.3d 652, 848 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered April 6, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

In reaching our determination herein, we have not considered evidence which is dehors the record with respect to the order appealed from (see Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462 [2003]; Matter of Hogg v Cianciulli, 247 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]; Gintell v Coleman, 136 AD2d 515, 516-517 [1988]; see also Krzyanowski v Eveready Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 613 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Garni and McCarthy, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered April 6, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

In reaching our determination herein, we have not considered evidence which is dehors the record with respect to the order appealed from (see Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462 [2003]; Matter of Hogg v Cianciulli, 247 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]; Gintell v Coleman, 136 AD2d 515, 516-517 [1988]; see also Krzyanowski v Eveready Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 613 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 652, 848 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bladykas-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack