Genevit Creations, Inc. v. Gueits Adams & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Genevit Creations, Inc. v. Gueits Adams & Co.

306 A.D.2d 142, 760 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7000

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

DecidedJune 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 142 (Genevit Creations, Inc. v. Gueits Adams & Co.) 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

Genevit Creations, Inc. v. Gueits Adams & Co., 306 A.D.2d 142, 760 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 19, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants to quash plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in quashing plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum, which was overbroad in its demands and was served to obtain further discovery after plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, certifying that all necessary discovery had been completed (see Soho Generation of N.Y. v Tri-City Ins. Brokers, 236 AD2d 276, 277 [1997]; Mestel & Co. v Smythe Masterson & Judd, 215 AD2d 329, 330 [1995]).

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed within 120 days of the last deposition conducted in this matter, in accordance with a so-ordered stipulation between the parties, was timely.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim since the alleged oral contract for defendants to handle all of plaintiffs’ insurance needs could not be performed within one year and was thus void under the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Also properly dismissed was plaintiffs’ remaining claim, for fraud, since the record was devoid of evidence raising a triable issue as to the existence of the alleged scheme/conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 19, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants to quash plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in quashing plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum, which was overbroad in its demands and was served to obtain further discovery after plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, certifying that all necessary discovery had been completed (see Soho Generation of N.Y. v Tri-City Ins. Brokers, 236 AD2d 276, 277 [1997]; Mestel & Co. v Smythe Masterson & Judd, 215 AD2d 329, 330 [1995]).

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed within 120 days of the last deposition conducted in this matter, in accordance with a so-ordered stipulation between the parties, was timely.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim since the alleged oral contract for defendants to handle all of plaintiffs’ insurance needs could not be performed within one year and was thus void under the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Also properly dismissed was plaintiffs’ remaining claim, for fraud, since the record was devoid of evidence raising a triable issue as to the existence of the alleged scheme/conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 142, 760 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genevit-creations-inc-v-gueits-adams-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack