GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Jupiter Supply Co.

51 A.D.2d 993, 380 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 993 (GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Jupiter Supply 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
GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Jupiter Supply Co., 51 A.D.2d 993, 380 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In an action (1) against Jupiter Supply Co., Inc., to recover for goods sold and delivered and (2) against Luna Industries, Inc., on its guarantee of payment for such goods, Luna Industries, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 5, 1975, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against it. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated by conclusory statements devoid of evidentiary facts showing a bona fide issue requiring a trial. While appellant asserts the existence of a valid affirmative defense, it has not alleged [994]*994evidentiary facts showing that any of the materials delivered by plaintiff were delivered late or improperly, or that it was overcharged, or that plaintiff delivered improper or defective merchandise, or that materials delivered were returned (see General Bldg. Supply Corp. v Shapn, Inc., 35 AD2d 550). Furthermore, the affidavit of appellant’s attorney must be disregarded because of his failure to profess personal knowledge of the underlying facts (see V.A.W. of Amer. v General Elec. Co., 38 AD2d 989, 990; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3212.05); objection to this affidavit was made by plaintiff at Special Term (see Mackenzie v Rothschild, 267 App Div 989, mod 294 NY 800; Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v Murphy, 33 Misc 2d 74). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Peterson Children
185 Misc. 2d 351 (NYC Family Court, 2000)
Lighting Horizons, Inc. v. E. A. Kahn & Co.
120 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
417 East Realty Associates v. Ryan
110 Misc. 2d 607 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1981)
Rosenberg v. Del-Mar Division, Champion International Corp.
56 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.2d 993, 380 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gte-sylvania-inc-v-jupiter-supply-co-nyappdiv-1976.