Opinion
2015-06994, Index No. 425/11.
11-01-2017
Louis DOSSOUS, appellant, v. CORPORATE OWNERS BAYRIDGE NISSAN, INC., respondent.
Louis Dossous, Westbury, NY, appellant pro se. McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York, NY (Brian J. Carey of counsel), for respondent.
Louis Dossous, Westbury, NY, appellant pro se.
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York, NY (Brian J. Carey of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated May 5, 2015, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment on its counterclaim to recover charges due.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff left his vehicle with the defendant, a car dealer and service shop, after signing a work order. Later that day, the plaintiff refused to pay a charge for diagnostic testing and the defendant refused to release the vehicle to him. The plaintiff's vehicle remained at the defendant's premises for multiple months.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for breach of contract. The defendant counterclaimed to recover charges due for diagnostic and storage fees. The defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its counterclaim. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on its counterclaim. The plaintiff appeals.The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ).
Further, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment on its counterclaim. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ) by submitting, inter alia, the work order that the plaintiff signed, by which he agreed to be responsible for diagnostic and storage fees incurred. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ).