Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 250 Tenants' Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 250 Tenants' Corp.

275 A.D.2d 697, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9168

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 697 (Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 250 Tenants' Corp.) 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

Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 250 Tenants' Corp., 275 A.D.2d 697, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a license agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 17, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1981 the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the plaintiff obtained a license to furnish and maintain its coin-operated laundry equipment in the defendants’ apartment building. In 1997 the defendants informed [698]*698the plaintiff that “the agreement expires on June 30, 1997”. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract claiming that its license extended until the year 2000 or 2001.

After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that its license extended beyond June 30, 1997 (see generally, W. W. W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see generally, Gaetano Marzotto & Figli v Filene’s Basement, 213 AD2d 591). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a license agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 17, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1981 the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the plaintiff obtained a license to furnish and maintain its coin-operated laundry equipment in the defendants’ apartment building. In 1997 the defendants informed [698]*698the plaintiff that “the agreement expires on June 30, 1997”. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract claiming that its license extended until the year 2000 or 2001.

After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that its license extended beyond June 30, 1997 (see generally, W. W. W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see generally, Gaetano Marzotto & Figli v Filene’s Basement, 213 AD2d 591). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 697, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metered-appliances-inc-v-250-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack