From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 6, 2013
111 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-6

APPROVED OIL CO. OF BROOKLYN, INC., etc., respondent, v. JUNIUS REALTY, LLC, et al., appellants.

Koss & Schonfeld, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Simcha D. Schonfeld of counsel), for appellants. Darren J. Epstein, Esq., P.C., New City, N.Y., for respondent.


Koss & Schonfeld, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Simcha D. Schonfeld of counsel), for appellants. Darren J. Epstein, Esq., P.C., New City, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 14, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. The evidence relied upon by the defendants was not “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Pasquaretto v. Long Is. Univ., 106 A.D.3d 794, 795, 964 N.Y.S.2d 599;Cives Corp. v. George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 97 A.D.3d 713, 714, 948 N.Y.S.2d 658;Jones v. Rochdale Vil., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 1014, 1017, 948 N.Y.S.2d 80). Moreover, dismissal was not warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), since the evidence did not show that any material fact alleged by the plaintiff was not a fact at all or that no significant dispute exists regarding it ( see Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17;Constructamax, Inc. v. Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 109 A.D.3d 574, 971 N.Y.S.2d 48;Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v. Cappelli Enters., Inc., 108 A.D.3d 634, 636, 970 N.Y.S.2d 47).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 6, 2013
111 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Realty

Case Details

Full title:APPROVED OIL CO. OF BROOKLYN, INC., etc., respondent, v. JUNIUS REALTY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 6, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7142
974 N.Y.S.2d 294