Conch Associates Inc. v. PMCC Mortgage Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conch Associates Inc. v. PMCC Mortgage Corp.

282 A.D.2d 422, 722 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3311

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 422 (Conch Associates Inc. v. PMCC Mortgage 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

Conch Associates Inc. v. PMCC Mortgage Corp., 282 A.D.2d 422, 722 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 14, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. We agree with the Supreme Court, however, that the papers submitted by the defendant in opposition to the motion established that there are triable issues of fact which preclude the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 14, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. We agree with the Supreme Court, however, that the papers submitted by the defendant in opposition to the motion established that there are triable issues of fact which preclude the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 422, 722 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conch-associates-inc-v-pmcc-mortgage-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack