Summary
stating that there must be an issue of fact regarding the intent to adopt the other parties business name
Summary of this case from In re HoubigantOpinion
July 28, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact regarding the defendants' intent in adopting its business name. Thus, the plaintiff's first cause of action, which was brought under General Business Law § 133, was properly dismissed (see, General Business Law § 133; Association of Contr. Plumbers v Contracting Plumbers Assn., 302 N.Y. 495, 501; Matter of Playland Holding Corp. v Playland Center, 1 N.Y.2d 300, 303; Matter of Dunkin' Donuts of Am. v Dunkin Donuts, 8 A.D.2d 228; Matter of State of New York v Bevis Indus., 63 Misc.2d 1088, 1091). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.