FLOMENBAUM v. New York University

New York Court of Appeals

FLOMENBAUM v. New York University

929 N.E.2d 403, 14 N.Y.3d 901, 903 N.Y.S.2d 339

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 3, 2010·No. 167 SSM 21·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant New York University breached the parties’ underlying contract (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant New York University breached the parties’ underlying contract (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

FLOMENBAUM v. New York University, 929 N.E.2d 403, 14 N.Y.3d 901, 903 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

929 N.E.2d 403 (FLOMENBAUM v. New York University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related