La Touraine Coffee Co. v. Al Deppe's Diner, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

La Touraine Coffee Co. v. Al Deppe's Diner, Inc.

109 A.D.2d 824, 487 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47333

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 824 (La Touraine Coffee Co. v. Al Deppe's Diner, 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

La Touraine Coffee Co. v. Al Deppe's Diner, Inc., 109 A.D.2d 824, 487 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover moneys owed primarily on notes and personal guarantees, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Goldberg, J.), entered March 16,1982, as denied those branches of its motion as sought summary judgment with respect to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the aforenoted branches of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted as to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment which shall include attorney’s fees to which [825]*825plaintiff is entitled under the agreements entered into by the parties providing for attorney’s fees of 15% of the sum recovered.

On this motion for summary judgment, the movant produced evidentiary facts supporting the causes of action at issue and indicating the lack of a triable issue of fact. Defendants’ papers submitted in opposition contain only conclusory statements and no evidentiary facts or documents demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. In the absence of such an evidentiary showing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be granted to the extent indicated herein (Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728; Castro v Liberty Bus Co., 79 AD2d 1014). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover moneys owed primarily on notes and personal guarantees, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Goldberg, J.), entered March 16,1982, as denied those branches of its motion as sought summary judgment with respect to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the aforenoted branches of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted as to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment which shall include attorney’s fees to which [825]*825plaintiff is entitled under the agreements entered into by the parties providing for attorney’s fees of 15% of the sum recovered.

On this motion for summary judgment, the movant produced evidentiary facts supporting the causes of action at issue and indicating the lack of a triable issue of fact. Defendants’ papers submitted in opposition contain only conclusory statements and no evidentiary facts or documents demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. In the absence of such an evidentiary showing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be granted to the extent indicated herein (Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728; Castro v Liberty Bus Co., 79 AD2d 1014). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 824, 487 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-touraine-coffee-co-v-al-deppes-diner-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack