Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. v. Chautauqua County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. v. Chautauqua County

237 A.D.2d 880, 656 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 880 (Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. v. Chautauqua County) 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

Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. v. Chautauqua County, 237 A.D.2d 880, 656 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: As third-party plaintiff, Chautauqua County (County), concedes on appeal, Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of third-party defendant, URS Consultants, Inc. (URS), for summary judgment dismissing the County’s fifth cause of action seeking contribution for any economic loss sustained by plaintiff, Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. (Tri-Delta), resulting from the alleged breach by the County of its contract with Tri-Delta (see, Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21; Tempforce, Inc. v Municipal Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 778, lv denied 87 NY2d 811; Cappelletti v Unigard Ins. Co., 222 AD2d 1029).

The court properly denied, however, that part of URS’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the County’s causes of action against URS for contractual indemnification and breach of contract. The issue on a motion for summary judgment "is not whether [the movant] can ultimately establish liability, [881]*881but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact * * * on the issue of liability which requires a plenary trial” (Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247, 254). Here, the County has raised triable issues of fact regarding the scope of the duties of URS under its contract with the County and whether URS breached those duties (see generally, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065).

We therefore modify the order by granting in part the motion of URS for summary judgment and dismissing the County’s fifth cause of action and otherwise affirm. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: As third-party plaintiff, Chautauqua County (County), concedes on appeal, Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of third-party defendant, URS Consultants, Inc. (URS), for summary judgment dismissing the County’s fifth cause of action seeking contribution for any economic loss sustained by plaintiff, Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc. (Tri-Delta), resulting from the alleged breach by the County of its contract with Tri-Delta (see, Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21; Tempforce, Inc. v Municipal Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 778, lv denied 87 NY2d 811; Cappelletti v Unigard Ins. Co., 222 AD2d 1029).

The court properly denied, however, that part of URS’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the County’s causes of action against URS for contractual indemnification and breach of contract. The issue on a motion for summary judgment "is not whether [the movant] can ultimately establish liability, [881]*881but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact * * * on the issue of liability which requires a plenary trial” (Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247, 254). Here, the County has raised triable issues of fact regarding the scope of the duties of URS under its contract with the County and whether URS breached those duties (see generally, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065).

We therefore modify the order by granting in part the motion of URS for summary judgment and dismissing the County’s fifth cause of action and otherwise affirm. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 880, 656 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-delta-aggregates-inc-v-chautauqua-county-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack