Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

191 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1804

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 1993·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendant appeals as limited by its notice of appeal and further limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 8, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment (see, Garnham & Han Real Estate Brokers v Oppenheimer, 148 AD2d 493, 494). The defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by "tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendant appeals as limited by its notice of appeal and further limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 8, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment (see, Garnham & Han Real Estate Brokers v Oppenheimer, 148 AD2d 493, 494). The defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by "tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 419 (Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related