Con-Solid Contracting, Inc. v. Litwak Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Con-Solid Contracting, Inc. v. Litwak Development Corp.

236 A.D.2d 437, 654 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 437 (Con-Solid Contracting, Inc. v. Litwak Development 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

Con-Solid Contracting, Inc. v. Litwak Development Corp., 236 A.D.2d 437, 654 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, Con-Solid Contracting, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated June 26, 1995, which granted the motion of the respondents I.J. Litwak & Co., Inc., Irving J. Litwak, and Harris Litwak for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The defendants, including the respondents, waived the defense of the Statute of Frauds by failing to assert it in either their verified answer or a motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; [e]; Raoul v Olde Vil. Hall, 76 AD2d 319, 333; Reich v Knopf, 65 AD2d 618, 619).

Furthermore, this record presents issues of fact regarding whether I.J. Litwak & Co., Inc., which is a signatory to an amendment of the contract between the plaintiff and Litwak Development Corp., is jointly liable to the plaintiff for work performed pursuant to the contract. Since the determination of the parties’ intent depends, at least in part, on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, such determination should be made by a jury (see, Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, Con-Solid Contracting, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated June 26, 1995, which granted the motion of the respondents I.J. Litwak & Co., Inc., Irving J. Litwak, and Harris Litwak for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The defendants, including the respondents, waived the defense of the Statute of Frauds by failing to assert it in either their verified answer or a motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; [e]; Raoul v Olde Vil. Hall, 76 AD2d 319, 333; Reich v Knopf, 65 AD2d 618, 619).

Furthermore, this record presents issues of fact regarding whether I.J. Litwak & Co., Inc., which is a signatory to an amendment of the contract between the plaintiff and Litwak Development Corp., is jointly liable to the plaintiff for work performed pursuant to the contract. Since the determination of the parties’ intent depends, at least in part, on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, such determination should be made by a jury (see, Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 437, 654 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/con-solid-contracting-inc-v-litwak-development-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack