Liebowitz v. Kolodny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebowitz v. Kolodny

24 A.D.3d 733, 807 N.Y.S.2d 128

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 733 (Liebowitz v. Kolodny) 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

Liebowitz v. Kolodny, 24 A.D.3d 733, 807 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her reply brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated July 19, 2005, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims to the extent they sought interest paid to certain taxing authorities.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, justifying dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaims to the extent the counterclaims sought interest paid to certain taxing authorities (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Jamie Towers Hous. Co. v William B. Lucas, Inc., 296 AD2d 359 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing those counterclaims, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]). Crane, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her reply brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated July 19, 2005, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims to the extent they sought interest paid to certain taxing authorities.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, justifying dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaims to the extent the counterclaims sought interest paid to certain taxing authorities (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Jamie Towers Hous. Co. v William B. Lucas, Inc., 296 AD2d 359 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing those counterclaims, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]). Crane, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 733, 807 N.Y.S.2d 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebowitz-v-kolodny-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack