Ten Best Bar Rest Group, Inc. v. Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ten Best Bar Rest Group, Inc. v. Roche

278 A.D.2d 27, 717 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12627

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 27 (Ten Best Bar Rest Group, Inc. v. Roche) 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

Ten Best Bar Rest Group, Inc. v. Roche, 278 A.D.2d 27, 717 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 12, 1999, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the principal amount of $95,000, and bringing up for review an order, also entered on or about July 12, 1999, which, insofar as challenged, partially granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its main claim and for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim, and denied defendants’ cross motion for a default judgment on their counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[28]*28The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing defendants to return the $95,000 that plaintiff paid them in contemplation of the transfer of their business to plaintiff, which transfer never took place. Defendants’ counterclaim was properly dismissed in view of the prior action pending in Suffolk County for the same relief, and the showing that plaintiff makes of a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Wallach, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 12, 1999, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the principal amount of $95,000, and bringing up for review an order, also entered on or about July 12, 1999, which, insofar as challenged, partially granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its main claim and for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim, and denied defendants’ cross motion for a default judgment on their counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[28]*28The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing defendants to return the $95,000 that plaintiff paid them in contemplation of the transfer of their business to plaintiff, which transfer never took place. Defendants’ counterclaim was properly dismissed in view of the prior action pending in Suffolk County for the same relief, and the showing that plaintiff makes of a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Wallach, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 27, 717 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ten-best-bar-rest-group-inc-v-roche-nyappdiv-2000.