Ruggeri v. Sbarro, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruggeri v. Sbarro, Inc.

5 A.D.3d 152, 772 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2256

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 152 (Ruggeri v. Sbarro, Inc.) 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

Ruggeri v. Sbarro, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 152, 772 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[153]*153Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for partial summary judgment on its first three counterclaims, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment or leave to amend their reply to the counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are issues of fact which preclude summary judgment to either side. In particular, the letter agreement between the parties, which concerned the establishment and operation of three restaurants, does not appear to be an unambiguous contract; one or more further writings may have been contemplated relating to, among other matters, the formation of the limited liability companies referred to in the letter, and the loans purportedly guaranteed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[153]*153Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for partial summary judgment on its first three counterclaims, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment or leave to amend their reply to the counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are issues of fact which preclude summary judgment to either side. In particular, the letter agreement between the parties, which concerned the establishment and operation of three restaurants, does not appear to be an unambiguous contract; one or more further writings may have been contemplated relating to, among other matters, the formation of the limited liability companies referred to in the letter, and the loans purportedly guaranteed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 152, 772 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggeri-v-sbarro-inc-nyappdiv-2004.