Pharmhealth Infusion, Inc. v. Rohm Services Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pharmhealth Infusion, Inc. v. Rohm Services Corp.

249 A.D.2d 950, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 950 (Pharmhealth Infusion, Inc. v. Rohm Services 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

Pharmhealth Infusion, Inc. v. Rohm Services Corp., 249 A.D.2d 950, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action of the complaint. “[G]iven their most favorable intendment” (Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 442, rearg denied and dismissed 57 NY2d 669, 674, cert denied 459 US 1146), the allegations contained therein, supplemented by plaintiffs additional submissions (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), establish a prima facie case of breach of contract. Additionally, the court properly denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment as premature because issue was not yet joined (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action of the complaint. “[G]iven their most favorable intendment” (Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 442, rearg denied and dismissed 57 NY2d 669, 674, cert denied 459 US 1146), the allegations contained therein, supplemented by plaintiffs additional submissions (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), establish a prima facie case of breach of contract. Additionally, the court properly denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment as premature because issue was not yet joined (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 950, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pharmhealth-infusion-inc-v-rohm-services-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack