From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKesson Corp. v. Gabe's Pharmacy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiff McKesson Corporation, doing business as S-P Drug Company, Inc. (hereinafter McKesson), for summary judgment since the affidavit of the president of the defendant Gabe's Pharmacy, Inc., doing business as Gabe's Pharmacy (hereinafter the Pharmacy), created an issue of fact as to whether there was an account stated, and as to the amount of money the Pharmacy owed McKesson (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Moreover, McKesson's request for additional relief was not raised before the Supreme Court and is therefore not properly before us (see, Bank of N.Y. v. Gray, 228 A.D.2d 399).

The Supreme Court properly denied the Pharmacy's cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of accord and satisfaction since there was an issue of fact as to whether McKesson was clearly informed that its acceptance of the Pharmacy's check would discharge all of its claims against the Pharmacy (see, Dario Marchione Gen. Contr. v. Cassara-Associates, 129 A.D.2d 973; Conboy, McKay, Bachman Kendall v. Armstrong, 110 A.D.2d 1042, 1043).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McKesson Corp. v. Gabe's Pharmacy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

McKesson Corp. v. Gabe's Pharmacy, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:McKESSON CORPORATION, Doing Business as S-P DRUG COMPANY, INC.…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 518

Citing Cases

Fitzsimmons v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

onstrate that there is a disputed unliquidated claim between the parties, and that the parties reached a new…