Deer Park Enterprises, LLC v. AIL Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deer Park Enterprises, LLC v. AIL Systems, Inc.

46 A.D.3d 504, 846 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 504 (Deer Park Enterprises, LLC v. AIL Systems, 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

Deer Park Enterprises, LLC v. AIL Systems, Inc., 46 A.D.3d 504, 846 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated September 15, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant failed to meet its initial burden by establishing, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In fact, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, consisting largely of correspondence and affidavits, served not only to clarify the parties’ respective positions, but actually defined the factual issues remaining to be determined at trial. Krausman, J.P., Fisher, Angiolillo and Balkin, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated September 15, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant failed to meet its initial burden by establishing, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In fact, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, consisting largely of correspondence and affidavits, served not only to clarify the parties’ respective positions, but actually defined the factual issues remaining to be determined at trial. Krausman, J.P., Fisher, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 504, 846 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deer-park-enterprises-llc-v-ail-systems-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack