From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nat'l Auditing Servs. & Consulting v. 511 Prop., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Sep 29, 2020
186 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

11884 Index No. 650670/16 Case No. 2019-1191

09-29-2020

NATIONAL AUDITING SERVICES & CONSULTING, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 511 PROPERTY, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York (Marc T. Miller of counsel), for appellant. Joel Scott Ray, New York, for respondent.


Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York (Marc T. Miller of counsel), for appellant.

Joel Scott Ray, New York, for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Webber, Moulton, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered January 22, 2019, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its contract claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While, pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), plaintiff should have included a copy of defendant's answer with its moving papers, defendant submitted a copy of its answer with its opposition, and plaintiff submitted another copy with its reply. Plaintiff's failure to submit the answer with its opening papers was a mere irregularity, and no substantial right of any party was prejudiced (see Mew Equity, LLC v. Sutton Land Servs., LLC, 144 A.D.3d 874, 877, 42 N.Y.S.3d 175 [2d Dept. 2016] ).

The motion court correctly found a triable issue of fact as to the defense of fraud in the inducement. Defendant's reliance on plaintiff's representation that defendant was owed tax and other credits, which plaintiff stated was determined through its proprietary database, was not unreasonable as a matter of law; plaintiff's proprietary database was peculiarly within its own knowledge (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. Ame´rica Mo´vil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 278–279, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [2011] ). As the motion court also found, there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff performed an audit. A court may consult a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word in a contract (see Slattery Skanska Inc. v. American Home Assur. Co., 67 A.D.3d 1, 15, 885 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Hence, it is entirely proper for defendant to quote dictionary definitions of "audit."


Summaries of

Nat'l Auditing Servs. & Consulting v. 511 Prop., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Sep 29, 2020
186 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Nat'l Auditing Servs. & Consulting v. 511 Prop., LLC

Case Details

Full title:National Auditing Services & Consulting, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 511…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 29, 2020

Citations

186 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
186 A.D.3d 1160
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 5142

Citing Cases

CAC Atl. v. Harmon Stores, Inc.

Since the lease provides no definition for "existing," a lamentable word for any contract, the court refers…

16 W. 12 Holding, LLC v. 18 W. 12 th St. Apt. Corp.

However, as 16 West does not allege any resulting prejudice to its substantial rights, such an error is a…