Boise Cascade Office Products Corp. v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boise Cascade Office Products Corp. v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc.

30 A.D.3d 454, 816 N.Y.S.2d 374

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

DecidedJune 13, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 454 (Boise Cascade Office Products Corp. v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc.) 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

Boise Cascade Office Products Corp. v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 454, 816 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 12, 2005, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to strike its counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that, between July 18, 2003 and November 20, 2003, it sold and delivered goods to the defendant in the amount of $25,212.73, which the defendant accepted but did not pay for (see Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharm. Corp., 289 AD2d 310 [2001]; Schneider Fuel Oil v [455]*455DeGennaro, 238 AD2d 495, 495-496 [1997]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Neuman Distribs. v Jacobi Med. Ctr., 298 AD2d 568 [2002]). Specifically, the affidavit of the defendant’s chief accounting officer, claiming that the plaintiff overcharged the defendant for certain frequently used items, was unsubstantiated, conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Becker v Shore Drugs, 296 AD2d 515 [2002]; Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharm. Corp., supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 12, 2005, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to strike its counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that, between July 18, 2003 and November 20, 2003, it sold and delivered goods to the defendant in the amount of $25,212.73, which the defendant accepted but did not pay for (see Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharm. Corp., 289 AD2d 310 [2001]; Schneider Fuel Oil v [455]*455DeGennaro, 238 AD2d 495, 495-496 [1997]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Neuman Distribs. v Jacobi Med. Ctr., 298 AD2d 568 [2002]). Specifically, the affidavit of the defendant’s chief accounting officer, claiming that the plaintiff overcharged the defendant for certain frequently used items, was unsubstantiated, conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Becker v Shore Drugs, 296 AD2d 515 [2002]; Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharm. Corp., supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 454, 816 N.Y.S.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boise-cascade-office-products-corp-v-gilman-ciocia-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack