Galletti v. Werner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galletti v. Werner

8 A.D.3d 426, 778 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8454

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 426 (Galletti v. Werner) 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

Galletti v. Werner, 8 A.D.3d 426, 778 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant Michael R. Werner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judg[427]*427ment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated May 1, 2003, as, upon an order of the same court dated April 8, 2003, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $166,847.65.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to his allegations that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, failed to provide notice, and failed to comply with an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Fisher, 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 a lease, the defendant Michael R. Werner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judg[427]*427ment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated May 1, 2003, as, upon an order of the same court dated April 8, 2003, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $166,847.65.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to his allegations that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, failed to provide notice, and failed to comply with an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 426, 778 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galletti-v-werner-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack