Jurmann v. Heimer Engineering, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jurmann v. Heimer Engineering, P.C.

52 A.D.3d 475, 857 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedJune 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 475 (Jurmann v. Heimer Engineering, P.C.) 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

Jurmann v. Heimer Engineering, P.C., 52 A.D.3d 475, 857 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated May 30, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that it seeks to recover damages in excess of the amount of the inspection fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the parties entered into a written agreement dated June 10, 1999 defining their relationship and limiting the defendant’s liability to the amount of its inspection fee, and that it performed its obligations under the contract in accordance with relevant industry standards. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the parties were bound by the 1999 written agreement or a subsequent oral contract. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Rivera, J.P, Spolzino, Dickerson and Eng, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated May 30, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that it seeks to recover damages in excess of the amount of the inspection fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the parties entered into a written agreement dated June 10, 1999 defining their relationship and limiting the defendant’s liability to the amount of its inspection fee, and that it performed its obligations under the contract in accordance with relevant industry standards. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the parties were bound by the 1999 written agreement or a subsequent oral contract. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Rivera, J.P, Spolzino, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 475, 857 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jurmann-v-heimer-engineering-pc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack