Hydric, Inc. v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hydric, Inc. v. Jackson

22 A.D.3d 636, 801 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 636 (Hydric, Inc. v. Jackson) 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

Hydric, Inc. v. Jackson, 22 A.D.3d 636, 801 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Fagones, J.), dated July 16, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record (see CFLR 3212 [b]), awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the purported five-year renewal of the parties’ commercial lease was barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, 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 a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Fagones, J.), dated July 16, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record (see CFLR 3212 [b]), awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the purported five-year renewal of the parties’ commercial lease was barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 636, 801 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hydric-inc-v-jackson-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack