Pizzo v. Gent Uniform Rental Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pizzo v. Gent Uniform Rental Corp.

46 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 531 (Pizzo v. Gent Uniform Rental 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

Pizzo v. Gent Uniform Rental Corp., 46 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated January 12, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the written agreements between the parties, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact arising from the allegations in his complaint, and the admissions of the defendant Frank Urbinati, Jr., at a deposition in a prior action (see Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127, 134 [1997]; Pollnow v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 67 NY2d 778, 780 [1986]; EDP Hosp. Computer Sys., Inc. v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 13 AD3d 476, 478 [2004]; Bono v Cucinella, 298 AD2d 483, 484 [2002]). Goldstein, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated January 12, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the written agreements between the parties, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact arising from the allegations in his complaint, and the admissions of the defendant Frank Urbinati, Jr., at a deposition in a prior action (see Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127, 134 [1997]; Pollnow v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 67 NY2d 778, 780 [1986]; EDP Hosp. Computer Sys., Inc. v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 13 AD3d 476, 478 [2004]; Bono v Cucinella, 298 AD2d 483, 484 [2002]). Goldstein, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pizzo-v-gent-uniform-rental-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack