MW Zack Metal Co. v. INT'L NAVIGATION CORP. OF MONROVIA

New York Court of Appeals

MW Zack Metal Co. v. INT'L NAVIGATION CORP. OF MONROVIA

492 N.E.2d 1219, 67 N.Y.2d 892, 501 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17999

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 492 N.E.2d 1219 (MW Zack Metal Co. v. INT'L NAVIGATION CORP. OF MONROVIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MW Zack Metal Co. v. INT'L NAVIGATION CORP. OF MONROVIA, 492 N.E.2d 1219, 67 N.Y.2d 892, 501 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17999 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (112 AD2d 865). We add that there was no prejudice to plaintiff in the Appellate Division’s having dealt with the motions as ones for summary judgment even though Special Term’s consideration of them was only as motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants’ motion and cross motion were stated to have been made pursuant to CPLR 3212. Moreover, plaintiff’s answering affidavit acknowledged in several places that defendants’ motions were for summary judgment and plaintiff responded to the motions by setting forth factual data in support of the allegations of the complaint (Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 103; O’Hara v Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363, 367-368; see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 281-283).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, *896 Kaye, Titone and Hancock, Jr. Taking no part: Judge Alexander.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (112 AD2d 865). We add that there was no prejudice to plaintiff in the Appellate Division’s having dealt with the motions as ones for summary judgment even though Special Term’s consideration of them was only as motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants’ motion and cross motion were stated to have been made pursuant to CPLR 3212. Moreover, plaintiff’s answering affidavit acknowledged in several places that defendants’ motions were for summary judgment and plaintiff responded to the motions by setting forth factual data in support of the allegations of the complaint (Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 103; O’Hara v Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363, 367-368; see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 281-283).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, *896 Kaye, Titone and Hancock, Jr. Taking no part: Judge Alexander.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 N.E.2d 1219, 67 N.Y.2d 892, 501 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mw-zack-metal-co-v-intl-navigation-corp-of-monrovia-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack