Malik v. Advanced Protection Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malik v. Advanced Protection Services, Inc.

123 A.D.3d 779, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2014

Docket2012-10352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 779 (Malik v. Advanced Protection Services, 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

Malik v. Advanced Protection Services, Inc., 123 A.D.3d 779, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme County, Queens County (Strauss, J), entered July 20, 2012, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding and enforceable contract that provided for a one-year limitations period for the commencement of actions alleging a breach of the contract. In opposition to that showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the contract was not binding or enforceable (see CPLR 201; John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York, 46 NY2d 544, 551 [1979]; Hunt v Raymour & Flanigan, 105 AD3d 1005 [2013]; Dimmick v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 57 AD3d 602, 603 [2008]; Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. v Carrier Corp., 5 AD3d 442, 443 [2004]). Since the instant action was not commenced within that one-year limitations period, the action was time-barred.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme County, Queens County (Strauss, J), entered July 20, 2012, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding and enforceable contract that provided for a one-year limitations period for the commencement of actions alleging a breach of the contract. In opposition to that showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the contract was not binding or enforceable (see CPLR 201; John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York, 46 NY2d 544, 551 [1979]; Hunt v Raymour & Flanigan, 105 AD3d 1005 [2013]; Dimmick v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 57 AD3d 602, 603 [2008]; Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. v Carrier Corp., 5 AD3d 442, 443 [2004]). Since the instant action was not commenced within that one-year limitations period, the action was time-barred.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 779, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malik-v-advanced-protection-services-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack