Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 485, 639 N.Y.2d 921, 639 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 485 (Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, 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

Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 485, 639 N.Y.2d 921, 639 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court properly granted defendant partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim for breach of the parties’ phonograph record distribution contract since, in support of the motion, defendant established its right to recovery, and plaintiff, in its opposition, failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Here, quite simply, plaintiff, as the party opposing the motion, failed to controvert the movant’s assertions (Mascoli v Mascoli, 129 AD2d 778, 780).

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The IAS Court properly granted defendant partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim for breach of the parties’ phonograph record distribution contract since, in support of the motion, defendant established its right to recovery, and plaintiff, in its opposition, failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Here, quite simply, plaintiff, as the party opposing the motion, failed to controvert the movant’s assertions (Mascoli v Mascoli, 129 AD2d 778, 780).

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 485, 639 N.Y.2d 921, 639 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuff-rumble-management-inc-v-landmark-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack