Firesearch Corp. v. Micro Computer Controls Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Firesearch Corp. v. Micro Computer Controls Corp.

240 A.D.2d 365, 658 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5778

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 2, 1997·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated May 14, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[366] Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the vague and conclusory assertions in the affidavits of the defendant Thomas DeGasperi to the effect that the defendants did not engage in any improper conduct are insufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

In any event, the plaintiff has established that it has not yet received an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into several relevant issues, some of which are exclusively within the knowledge of the defendants (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Urcan v Cocarelli, 234 AD2d 537; Halpern Dev. Venture v Board of Trustees, 222 AD2d 652; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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 and for injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated May 14, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[366] Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the vague and conclusory assertions in the affidavits of the defendant Thomas DeGasperi to the effect that the defendants did not engage in any improper conduct are insufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

In any event, the plaintiff has established that it has not yet received an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into several relevant issues, some of which are exclusively within the knowledge of the defendants (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Urcan v Cocarelli, 234 AD2d 537; Halpern Dev. Venture v Board of Trustees, 222 AD2d 652; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Firesearch Corp. v. Micro Computer Controls Corp., 240 A.D.2d 365, 658 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 365 (Firesearch Corp. v. Micro Computer Controls Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related