Stellema v. Vantage Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stellema v. Vantage Press, Inc.

155 A.D.2d 295

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 295 (Stellema v. Vantage Press, 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

Stellema v. Vantage Press, Inc., 155 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 23, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by the plaintiff for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for an immediate trial, with costs.

We find the record before us insufficient to entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law. There is some evidence that the services rendered by defendant Vantage were so negligible as to raise issues of fact regarding whether defendant Vantage ever intended to perform. Nor are we persuaded that the various representations were not actionable as a matter of law.

Further, after 12 years of litigation and numerous opportunities to challenge the sufficiency and merit of the complaint, we are not inclined to grant summary judgment on the eve of trial. We note that a trial preference due to plaintiff’s age has been granted. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 23, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by the plaintiff for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for an immediate trial, with costs.

We find the record before us insufficient to entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law. There is some evidence that the services rendered by defendant Vantage were so negligible as to raise issues of fact regarding whether defendant Vantage ever intended to perform. Nor are we persuaded that the various representations were not actionable as a matter of law.

Further, after 12 years of litigation and numerous opportunities to challenge the sufficiency and merit of the complaint, we are not inclined to grant summary judgment on the eve of trial. We note that a trial preference due to plaintiff’s age has been granted. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stellema-v-vantage-press-inc-nyappdiv-1989.