D.L. Brenner & Sons, Inc. v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp.

190 A.D.2d 774, 594 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433

This text of 190 A.D.2d 774 (D.L. Brenner & Sons, Inc. v. Quaker State Oil Refining 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
D.L. Brenner & Sons, Inc. v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 190 A.D.2d 774, 594 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty, negligence, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated October 1, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, for additional discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a motion for summary judgment the movant "bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” (Holtz v Niagara [775]*775Mohawk Power Corp., 147 AD2d 857, 858). The opposing party then must present some admissible proof that would require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Ferber v Sterndent Corp., 51 NY2d 782, 783). We find that the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment and that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with respect to each cause of action in the complaint. Specifically, the plaintiff has failed to show through legally admissible evidence that it lost its customers because of any breach of warranty, negligence, or fraud on the part of the defendant.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.
412 N.E.2d 1311 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Holtz v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
147 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 A.D.2d 774, 594 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dl-brenner-sons-inc-v-quaker-state-oil-refining-corp-nyappdiv-1993.