Precast, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Precast, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

161 A.D.2d 622, 558 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5909

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

DecidedMay 14, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 622 (Precast, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.) 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

Precast, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 161 A.D.2d 622, 558 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Seaboard Surety Co., Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., and Lizza Industries, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated January 9, 1989, as denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the argument raised by the appellants-respondents, the Supreme Court properly considered the contents of a signed deposition transcript in reaching its determination that the existence of issues of fact precluded an award of partial summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; cf., Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252). We have also considered whether the plaintiff’s arguments warrant the granting of partial summary judgment to it, and we conclude that such relief is not warranted. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, 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 Seaboard Surety Co., Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., and Lizza Industries, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated January 9, 1989, as denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the argument raised by the appellants-respondents, the Supreme Court properly considered the contents of a signed deposition transcript in reaching its determination that the existence of issues of fact precluded an award of partial summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; cf., Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252). We have also considered whether the plaintiff’s arguments warrant the granting of partial summary judgment to it, and we conclude that such relief is not warranted. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 622, 558 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/precast-inc-v-seaboard-surety-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack