Chauvin v. Keniry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chauvin v. Keniry

249 A.D.2d 745, 670 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109

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

DecidedApril 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 745 (Chauvin v. Keniry) 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

Chauvin v. Keniry, 249 A.D.2d 745, 670 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lewis, J.), entered December 20,1996 in Sara-toga County, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their third affirmative defense.

Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we are persuaded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their third affirmative defense. As for plaintiff’s request that this Court search the record and award him summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, the record plainly reveals numerous questions of fact regarding the parties’ oral partnership agreement and the extent to which, if any, it was modified. Accordingly, we cannot say that Supreme Court erred in denying the requested relief.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lewis, J.), entered December 20,1996 in Sara-toga County, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their third affirmative defense.

Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we are persuaded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their third affirmative defense. As for plaintiff’s request that this Court search the record and award him summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, the record plainly reveals numerous questions of fact regarding the parties’ oral partnership agreement and the extent to which, if any, it was modified. Accordingly, we cannot say that Supreme Court erred in denying the requested relief.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 745, 670 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chauvin-v-keniry-nyappdiv-1998.