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
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 254 A.D.2d 15

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

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).

225 A.D.2d 485 (Tuff & Rumble Management, Inc. v. Landmark Distributors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Mascoli v. Mascoli
129 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)