Migliore v. Ricciardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Migliore v. Ricciardi

254 A.D.2d 29, 678 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9912

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 29 (Migliore v. Ricciardi) 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

Migliore v. Ricciardi, 254 A.D.2d 29, 678 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx

County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered June 26, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims asserted by defendant Yarka Ricciardi, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant Yarka Ricciardi was not a party to the subject contract or in privity with either party to the contract, she still has a sufficiently viable claim of entitlement thereunder, as a third-party beneficiary, to avoid summary dismissal of her counterclaims premised upon the contract. Evidence circumstantially reflecting the intention of plaintiffs decedent to act in Ms. Ricciardi’s interests (see, e.g., Town of Moriah v Cole-Layer-Trumble Co., 200 AD2d 879) when he entered into the subject home construction contract with Ms. Ricciardi’s husband suffices to raise triable issues as to whether Ms. Ricciardi was in fact a third-party beneficiary of the contract (see, 981 Third Ave. Corp. v Beltramini, 108 AD2d 667, 669, affd in part and appeal dismissed in part 67 NY2d 739). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx

County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered June 26, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims asserted by defendant Yarka Ricciardi, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant Yarka Ricciardi was not a party to the subject contract or in privity with either party to the contract, she still has a sufficiently viable claim of entitlement thereunder, as a third-party beneficiary, to avoid summary dismissal of her counterclaims premised upon the contract. Evidence circumstantially reflecting the intention of plaintiffs decedent to act in Ms. Ricciardi’s interests (see, e.g., Town of Moriah v Cole-Layer-Trumble Co., 200 AD2d 879) when he entered into the subject home construction contract with Ms. Ricciardi’s husband suffices to raise triable issues as to whether Ms. Ricciardi was in fact a third-party beneficiary of the contract (see, 981 Third Ave. Corp. v Beltramini, 108 AD2d 667, 669, affd in part and appeal dismissed in part 67 NY2d 739). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 29, 678 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/migliore-v-ricciardi-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack