Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk

128 A.D.2d 603, 513 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44293

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 603 (Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk) 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

Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk, 128 A.D.2d 603, 513 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), dated October 3, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion by a defendant for summary judgment, the issue is not whether the plaintiff can establish ultimate liability, but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact which requires a plenary trial (see, Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247; Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276). Therefore, Special Term properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the question of whether a contract exists, and, if it does, the nature of its terms, as evidenced by the two letters submitted by the plaintiffs, is in dispute. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), dated October 3, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion by a defendant for summary judgment, the issue is not whether the plaintiff can establish ultimate liability, but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact which requires a plenary trial (see, Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247; Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276). Therefore, Special Term properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the question of whether a contract exists, and, if it does, the nature of its terms, as evidenced by the two letters submitted by the plaintiffs, is in dispute. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 603, 513 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarpulla-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack