Xtal Technologies, Ltd. v. Teledyne Continental Motors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Xtal Technologies, Ltd. v. Teledyne Continental Motors

250 A.D.2d 764, 672 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 764 (Xtal Technologies, Ltd. v. Teledyne Continental Motors) 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

Xtal Technologies, Ltd. v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 250 A.D.2d 764, 672 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated March 25, 1997, as granted the motion by [765]*765the defendant Teledyne Continental Motors pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs complaint insofar as asserted against Teledyne Continental Motors for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated March 25, 1997, as granted the motion by [765]*765the defendant Teledyne Continental Motors pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs complaint insofar as asserted against Teledyne Continental Motors for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 764, 672 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xtal-technologies-ltd-v-teledyne-continental-motors-nyappdiv-1998.