From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freeman Lumber Co. v. A.C. Dutton Lumber Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision adhering to that portion of the original determination which granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

The parties' materially conflicting allegations concerning the terms of their contract, and the issues of credibility generated by those allegations, create questions of fact which cannot be resolved as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 ; Zilm v. Koch, 211 A.D.2d 675; Ferrer v. Stofsky, 204 A.D.2d 386; Rudnitsky v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488, 489). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see, Rizzo v. Lincoln Diner Corp., 215 A.D.2d 546; Greenberg v. Green, 197 A.D.2d 502; Bellavia v Greenough, 193 A.D.2d 712). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Freeman Lumber Co. v. A.C. Dutton Lumber Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Freeman Lumber Co. v. A.C. Dutton Lumber Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FREEMAN LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. A.C. DUTTON LUMBER CORP.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 23, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 965

Citing Cases

Underwood v. American Telephone and Tel. Co.

Ordered that the provision of the order dated June 27, 1994, which granted summary judgment to the defendants…

Daniels v. Almodovar

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs. We agree with the Supreme Court that there exist…