Manhattan Center for Early Learning Inc. v. New York Child Resource Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan Center for Early Learning Inc. v. New York Child Resource Center, Inc.

59 A.D.3d 365, 873 N.Y.S.2d 306

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 2009·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 3, 2008, granting the motion of defendant New York Child Resource Center, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The motion should not have been granted where the record shows that defendant deprived plaintiffs of an opportunity to obtain court-ordered depositions, at which plaintiffs may have been able to obtain helpful testimony (see Nelson v Bestway Coach Express, 36 AD3d 488 [2007]). Furthermore, although the complaint was sparse, plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion raise triable issues of fact regarding their claim for tortious interference with contract, including on the element of damages (see Click Model Mgt. v Williams, 167 AD2d 279, 280 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 805 [1991]; see also Ramos v Jake Realty Co., 21 AD3d 744, 745 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 3, 2008, granting the motion of defendant New York Child Resource Center, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The motion should not have been granted where the record shows that defendant deprived plaintiffs of an opportunity to obtain court-ordered depositions, at which plaintiffs may have been able to obtain helpful testimony (see Nelson v Bestway Coach Express, 36 AD3d 488 [2007]). Furthermore, although the complaint was sparse, plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion raise triable issues of fact regarding their claim for tortious interference with contract, including on the element of damages (see Click Model Mgt. v Williams, 167 AD2d 279, 280 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 805 [1991]; see also Ramos v Jake Realty Co., 21 AD3d 744, 745 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

Manhattan Center for Early Learning Inc. v. New York Child Resource Center, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 365, 873 N.Y.S.2d 306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 365 (Manhattan Center for Early Learning Inc. v. New York Child Resource Center, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related