Transport Towing, Inc. v. Rad Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Transport Towing, Inc. v. Rad Oil Co.

258 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 569 (Transport Towing, Inc. v. Rad Oil Co.) 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

Transport Towing, Inc. v. Rad Oil Co., 258 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 28, 1997, as, in effect, granted the plaintiffs motion for renewal, vacated so much of an order of the same court, dated May 29, 1997, as granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim, and denied that motion.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err by, in effect, treating the plaintiffs motion as one for renewal [570]*570(see, CPLR 2221; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Turkel v I.M.I. Warp Knits, 50 AD2d 543), and, upon renewal, vacating so much of its earlier order as had granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and substituting an order denying the motion (see, McMahon v Pfister, 49 AD2d 729, 730; Hastings v Richard, Ellis & Co., 36 AD2d 695).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, 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, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 28, 1997, as, in effect, granted the plaintiffs motion for renewal, vacated so much of an order of the same court, dated May 29, 1997, as granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim, and denied that motion.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err by, in effect, treating the plaintiffs motion as one for renewal [570]*570(see, CPLR 2221; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Turkel v I.M.I. Warp Knits, 50 AD2d 543), and, upon renewal, vacating so much of its earlier order as had granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and substituting an order denying the motion (see, McMahon v Pfister, 49 AD2d 729, 730; Hastings v Richard, Ellis & Co., 36 AD2d 695).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/transport-towing-inc-v-rad-oil-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack