Martin v. Pratt Institute

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Pratt Institute

278 A.D.2d 390, 717 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13229

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As set forth in its student bulletin, the defendant was entitled to withhold [391] the plaintiffs diploma and transcript at the time of her graduation because of her outstanding financial obligations (see, Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729; see also, Matter of Spas v Wharton, 106 Misc 2d 180). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s prima facie showing that she had an outstanding balance due (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As set forth in its student bulletin, the defendant was entitled to withhold [391] the plaintiffs diploma and transcript at the time of her graduation because of her outstanding financial obligations (see, Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729; see also, Matter of Spas v Wharton, 106 Misc 2d 180). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s prima facie showing that she had an outstanding balance due (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Martin v. Pratt Institute, 278 A.D.2d 390, 717 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 390 (Martin v. Pratt Institute) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related