Rad Oil Co. v. Pride & Glory, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rad Oil Co. v. Pride & Glory, Ltd.

253 A.D.2d 751, 677 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9421

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 751 (Rad Oil Co. v. Pride & Glory, Ltd.) 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

Rad Oil Co. v. Pride & Glory, Ltd., 253 A.D.2d 751, 677 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Fill-Up Petroleum, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered September 5, 1997, as denied those branches of the motion of the defendants Pride & Glory, Ltd., Fill-Up Petroleum, Inc., Philip J. Dowell, Edwin Dowell, Gail Dowell formerly known as Gail Foley, and H. Linda Dowell which were for summary judgment dismissing the 10th through 15th causes of action insofar as asserted against it, and to vacate the notice of pendency.

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

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff raised questions of fact which bar the granting of summary judgment to the appellant (see, Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 defendant Fill-Up Petroleum, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered September 5, 1997, as denied those branches of the motion of the defendants Pride & Glory, Ltd., Fill-Up Petroleum, Inc., Philip J. Dowell, Edwin Dowell, Gail Dowell formerly known as Gail Foley, and H. Linda Dowell which were for summary judgment dismissing the 10th through 15th causes of action insofar as asserted against it, and to vacate the notice of pendency.

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

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff raised questions of fact which bar the granting of summary judgment to the appellant (see, Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 751, 677 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rad-oil-co-v-pride-glory-ltd-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack