J.C. Drywall & Accoustical Contractors, Inc. v. West Shore Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J.C. Drywall & Accoustical Contractors, Inc. v. West Shore Partners

187 A.D.2d 564, 590 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1992·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover the balance due under a construction contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered September 11, 1990, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment and its request to transfer the balance of its claim to a court of lesser monetary jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 325 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the plaintiffs contention that its motion for partial summary judgment was improperly denied. Summary judgment is a drastic measure, and it should not be granted if there is any question as to the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). Here, there are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff completed or substantially completed all the duties under its construction contract. It is up to the fact finder to decide whether there was a breach, or whether there was substantial performance (see, Spence v Ham, 163 NY 220, 225; Jacob & Youngs v Kent, 230 NY 239, 241; Wilson Roofing & Painting v Jobco-E. R. Kelly Assocs., 128 AD2d 953, 954). Further, under the circumstances, the court properly denied the plaintiffs request to transfer the matter to a court of lesser monetary jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the balance due under a construction contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered September 11, 1990, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment and its request to transfer the balance of its claim to a court of lesser monetary jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 325 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the plaintiffs contention that its motion for partial summary judgment was improperly denied. Summary judgment is a drastic measure, and it should not be granted if there is any question as to the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). Here, there are questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff completed or substantially completed all the duties under its construction contract. It is up to the fact finder to decide whether there was a breach, or whether there was substantial performance (see, Spence v Ham, 163 NY 220, 225; Jacob & Youngs v Kent, 230 NY 239, 241; Wilson Roofing & Painting v Jobco-E. R. Kelly Assocs., 128 AD2d 953, 954). Further, under the circumstances, the court properly denied the plaintiffs request to transfer the matter to a court of lesser monetary jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

J.C. Drywall & Accoustical Contractors, Inc. v. West Shore Partners, 187 A.D.2d 564, 590 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 564 (J.C. Drywall & Accoustical Contractors, Inc. v. West Shore Partners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related