Harvest Moon, Inc. v. Arochas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harvest Moon, Inc. v. Arochas

270 A.D.2d 138, 706 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 1999, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for a default judgment on their counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment, once the proponent has demonstrated, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it becomes the burden of the opponent to present admissible evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of fact. Mere conclusions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Plantamura v Penske Truck Leasing, 246 AD2d 347, 348). Here, while defendants met their burden, plaintiff, in opposition, offered only self-serving conclusory assertions of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Nor did plaintiff show a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely reply to defendants’ counterclaims. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin 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 (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 1999, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for a default judgment on their counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment, once the proponent has demonstrated, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it becomes the burden of the opponent to present admissible evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of fact. Mere conclusions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Plantamura v Penske Truck Leasing, 246 AD2d 347, 348). Here, while defendants met their burden, plaintiff, in opposition, offered only self-serving conclusory assertions of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Nor did plaintiff show a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely reply to defendants’ counterclaims. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Harvest Moon, Inc. v. Arochas, 270 A.D.2d 138, 706 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 138 (Harvest Moon, Inc. v. Arochas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related