Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc.

295 A.D.2d 501, 744 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 501 (Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, 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

Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc., 295 A.D.2d 501, 744 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated March 7, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action asserted against it by the defendant third-party plaintiff Structure Tone, Inc.

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

The appellant failed to meet its burden of submitting sufficient evidence in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Further, there are issues of fact regarding the applicable contractual provisions in this case. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated March 7, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action asserted against it by the defendant third-party plaintiff Structure Tone, Inc.

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

The appellant failed to meet its burden of submitting sufficient evidence in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Further, there are issues of fact regarding the applicable contractual provisions in this case. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 501, 744 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volis-v-801-seventh-avenue-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack