Physician's Domain, Inc. v. Grosso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Physician's Domain, Inc. v. Grosso

288 A.D.2d 362, 733 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 362 (Physician's Domain, Inc. v. Grosso) 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

Physician's Domain, Inc. v. Grosso, 288 A.D.2d 362, 733 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia., to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants John Grosso and Jay S. Youngerman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme [363]*363Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered July 18, 2000, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

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

The plaintiff sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the underlying agreements and the failure to make payment in accordance with their terms (see, E.D.S. Sec. Sys. v Allyn, 262 AD2d 351; Capital Circulation Corp. v Gallop Leasing Corp., 248 AD2d 578). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Columbus Trust Co. v Campolo, 110 AD2d 616, affd 66 NY2d 701). The appellants failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that a false statement of fact was made by the plaintiff or that the plaintiff fraudulently concealed information that it was required to disclose. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Cozier, 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, the defendants John Grosso and Jay S. Youngerman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme [363]*363Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered July 18, 2000, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

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

The plaintiff sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the underlying agreements and the failure to make payment in accordance with their terms (see, E.D.S. Sec. Sys. v Allyn, 262 AD2d 351; Capital Circulation Corp. v Gallop Leasing Corp., 248 AD2d 578). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Columbus Trust Co. v Campolo, 110 AD2d 616, affd 66 NY2d 701). The appellants failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that a false statement of fact was made by the plaintiff or that the plaintiff fraudulently concealed information that it was required to disclose. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 362, 733 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/physicians-domain-inc-v-grosso-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack