VR Mechanical, Inc. v. Trataros Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VR Mechanical, Inc. v. Trataros Construction, Inc.

305 A.D.2d 493, 758 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 493 (VR Mechanical, Inc. v. Trataros Construction, 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

VR Mechanical, Inc. v. Trataros Construction, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 493, 758 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gigante, J.), dated July 31, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated July 9, 2001, granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $519,955.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see 222 Bloomingdale Rd. Assoc. v NYNEX Props. Co., 250 AD2d 668 [1998]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions either are raised for the first time on appeal or are improperly before this Court (see Reischer v Vusanjan, 250 AD2d 748, 749 [1998]), or are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Cozier and Mastro, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gigante, J.), dated July 31, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, dated July 9, 2001, granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $519,955.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see 222 Bloomingdale Rd. Assoc. v NYNEX Props. Co., 250 AD2d 668 [1998]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions either are raised for the first time on appeal or are improperly before this Court (see Reischer v Vusanjan, 250 AD2d 748, 749 [1998]), or are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 493, 758 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vr-mechanical-inc-v-trataros-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack