Mike-Paul Corp. v. Fratto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mike-Paul Corp. v. Fratto

5 A.D.3d 743, 773 N.Y.S.2d 595, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 743 (Mike-Paul Corp. v. Fratto) 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

Mike-Paul Corp. v. Fratto, 5 A.D.3d 743, 773 N.Y.S.2d 595, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 23, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [744]*744[1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Krausman 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 contract and tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 23, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [744]*744[1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 743, 773 N.Y.S.2d 595, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mike-paul-corp-v-fratto-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack