J.F.J. Fuel, Inc. v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J.F.J. Fuel, Inc. v. Ortiz

234 A.D.2d 424, 651 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 424 (J.F.J. Fuel, Inc. v. Ortiz) 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

J.F.J. Fuel, Inc. v. Ortiz, 234 A.D.2d 424, 651 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered December 6, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Justice Florio has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

[425]*425Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff presented a prima facie case demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment. The defendants’ general denials were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Spancrete Northeast v Elite Assocs., 184 AD2d 562).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered December 6, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Justice Florio has been substituted for the late Justice Hart (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

[425]*425Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff presented a prima facie case demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment. The defendants’ general denials were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Spancrete Northeast v Elite Assocs., 184 AD2d 562).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 424, 651 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jfj-fuel-inc-v-ortiz-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack