Lyon v. Chemical Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lyon v. Chemical Bank

118 A.D.2d 689, 499 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54554

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 689 (Lyon v. Chemical Bank) 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

Lyon v. Chemical Bank, 118 A.D.2d 689, 499 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated May 30, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and thereupon directed that a trial be held on the issue of the plaintiff’s damages.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[690]*690The defendant admits its breach of the contract, but argues that the plaintiff failed to make a proper evidentiary showing before Special Term establishing his right to damages.

In our opinion, the papers submitted to Special Term sufficiently establish that a trial is required to determine the plaintiffs damages, if any. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, 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 (Pantano, J.), dated May 30, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and thereupon directed that a trial be held on the issue of the plaintiff’s damages.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[690]*690The defendant admits its breach of the contract, but argues that the plaintiff failed to make a proper evidentiary showing before Special Term establishing his right to damages.

In our opinion, the papers submitted to Special Term sufficiently establish that a trial is required to determine the plaintiffs damages, if any. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 689, 499 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-v-chemical-bank-nyappdiv-1986.