Gorilla Realty, L. L. C. v. SLK Westbury, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorilla Realty, L. L. C. v. SLK Westbury, L. L. C.

288 A.D.2d 344, 734 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 344 (Gorilla Realty, L. L. C. v. SLK Westbury, L. L. C.) 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

Gorilla Realty, L. L. C. v. SLK Westbury, L. L. C., 288 A.D.2d 344, 734 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages, for tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated October 3, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see, Brunot v Eisenberger & Co., 266 AD2d 421; Scadura v Robillard, 256 AD2d 567). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion satisfied that burden, and the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, 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 tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated October 3, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see, Brunot v Eisenberger & Co., 266 AD2d 421; Scadura v Robillard, 256 AD2d 567). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion satisfied that burden, and the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 344, 734 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorilla-realty-l-l-c-v-slk-westbury-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack