John T. Brady & Co v. Dynetics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John T. Brady & Co v. Dynetics, Inc.

82 A.D.2d 874, 440 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14569

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

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 874 (John T. Brady & Co v. Dynetics, Inc.) 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

John T. Brady & Co v. Dynetics, Inc., 82 A.D.2d 874, 440 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), entered June 24, 1980, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of the third-party defendant, which alleged tortious interference with contractual relations. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the cross claim asserted against plaintiff by the third-party defendant is dismissed. To defeat plaintiff’s motion [875]*875for summary judgment, the third-party defendant (Vernitron) “was obliged to produce evidence, not just unsubstantiated allegations or assertions * * * of an intention [on the part of plaintiff] to harm [Vernitron] without economic or other lawful excuse or justification” (Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 281-282). Since the affidavits of Vernitron’s attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the relevant events, and the excerpts from the examination before trial of the president of defendant, the only papers submitted in opposition to this motion, do not contain such evidence, plaintiff’s motion should have been granted. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Hargett, 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 breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), entered June 24, 1980, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of the third-party defendant, which alleged tortious interference with contractual relations. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the cross claim asserted against plaintiff by the third-party defendant is dismissed. To defeat plaintiff’s motion [875]*875for summary judgment, the third-party defendant (Vernitron) “was obliged to produce evidence, not just unsubstantiated allegations or assertions * * * of an intention [on the part of plaintiff] to harm [Vernitron] without economic or other lawful excuse or justification” (Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 281-282). Since the affidavits of Vernitron’s attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the relevant events, and the excerpts from the examination before trial of the president of defendant, the only papers submitted in opposition to this motion, do not contain such evidence, plaintiff’s motion should have been granted. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Hargett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 874, 440 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-t-brady-co-v-dynetics-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack