Skiadas v. Barsalis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skiadas v. Barsalis

292 A.D.2d 593, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 593 (Skiadas v. Barsalis) 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

Skiadas v. Barsalis, 292 A.D.2d 593, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for the imposition of a constructive trust, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated December 22, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

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

In support of the branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). There is a question of fact, among others, as to whether the parties agreed that the defendant was obligated to repay the plaintiffs for sums allegedly expended on her behalf. Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, 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 and for the imposition of a constructive trust, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated December 22, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

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

In support of the branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). There is a question of fact, among others, as to whether the parties agreed that the defendant was obligated to repay the plaintiffs for sums allegedly expended on her behalf. Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 593, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skiadas-v-barsalis-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack