Gaylor v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaylor v. Rose

211 A.D.2d 756, 621 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 756 (Gaylor v. Rose) 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

Gaylor v. Rose, 211 A.D.2d 756, 621 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered June 14, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erred by dismissing the complaint. Review of the record demonstrates that the court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered June 14, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erred by dismissing the complaint. Review of the record demonstrates that the court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 756, 621 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaylor-v-rose-nyappdiv-1995.