Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh

62 A.D.3d 954, 878 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedMay 26, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 954 (Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh) 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

Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh, 62 A.D.3d 954, 878 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a dock, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [955]*955Orange County (Giacomo, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that a condition precedent to the formation of a binding agreement was not met (cf. Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 20 AD3d 503, 504 [2005]; Bradenton Realty Corp. v United Artists Props. I Corp., 264 AD2d 405 [1999]; Grin v 345 E. 56th St. Owners, 212 AD2d 504 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a dock, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [955]*955Orange County (Giacomo, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that a condition precedent to the formation of a binding agreement was not met (cf. Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 20 AD3d 503, 504 [2005]; Bradenton Realty Corp. v United Artists Props. I Corp., 264 AD2d 405 [1999]; Grin v 345 E. 56th St. Owners, 212 AD2d 504 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 954, 878 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joemark-enterprises-llc-v-city-of-newburgh-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack