Ramseur v. Hudsonview Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramseur v. Hudsonview Co.

59 A.D.3d 308, 874 N.Y.S.2d 51

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 2009·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 17, 2008, inter alia, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order that granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an attorney’s affidavit annexed with contracts and other documentary evidence (see e.g. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Lewis v Safety Disposal Sys. of Pa., Inc., 12 AD3d 324, 325 [2004]), showing that there was no breach of the settlement agreement or overcharge of plaintiffs rent. Elaintiff s opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Dismissal of plaintiffs claim under General Business Law § 349 was also appropriate, since the settlement agreement and renewed lease were private contracts between individual parties and did not affect consumers at large (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]; Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v Arnow, 238 AD2d 223, 224 [1997]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 17, 2008, inter alia, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order that granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an attorney’s affidavit annexed with contracts and other documentary evidence (see e.g. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Lewis v Safety Disposal Sys. of Pa., Inc., 12 AD3d 324, 325 [2004]), showing that there was no breach of the settlement agreement or overcharge of plaintiffs rent. Elaintiff s opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Dismissal of plaintiffs claim under General Business Law § 349 was also appropriate, since the settlement agreement and renewed lease were private contracts between individual parties and did not affect consumers at large (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]; Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v Arnow, 238 AD2d 223, 224 [1997]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Ramseur v. Hudsonview Co., 59 A.D.3d 308, 874 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 308 (Ramseur v. Hudsonview Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related