From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion by a defendant for summary judgment, the issue is not whether the plaintiff can establish ultimate liability, but, rather, whether there exists a substantial issue of fact which requires a plenary trial (see, Barr v. County of Albany, 50 N.Y.2d 247; Alvord Swift v. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276). Therefore, Special Term properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because the question of whether a contract exists, and, if it does, the nature of its terms, as evidenced by the two letters submitted by the plaintiffs, is in dispute. Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Scarpulla v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:REMO SCARPULLA et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Thrifty Oil & Heating Co. v. Chowdhury

Chowdhury also submitted evidence that the plaintiffs produced inconsistent versions of the agreement they…

Forbes v. State

The role of the Court, therefore, on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve material issues of fact,…