Marcus & Co. v. Pescitelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus & Co. v. Pescitelli

40 A.D.3d 940, 834 N.Y.S.2d 669

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 940 (Marcus & Co. v. Pescitelli) 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

Marcus & Co. v. Pescitelli, 40 A.D.3d 940, 834 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to [941]*941recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated June 28, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first, second, and third causes of action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first cause of action alleging breach of contract (see generally JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384 [2005]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) since, after the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants raised triable issues of fact in opposition to the motion (id.; see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to [941]*941recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated June 28, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first, second, and third causes of action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first cause of action alleging breach of contract (see generally JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384 [2005]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) since, after the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants raised triable issues of fact in opposition to the motion (id.; see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 940, 834 N.Y.S.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-co-v-pescitelli-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack