From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skyline Vineyards, Inc. v. Moravec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 10, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Yates County, Dugan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Yates County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in its determination that a forklift truck and clamp attachment levied upon by the Sheriff could be sold to satisfy respondent's judgment against Villa D'Ingianni Winery. The evidence before the court in this proceeding commenced pursuant to CPLR 5239 demonstrated that petitioner was the owner of the forklift truck and respondent's conclusory allegations failed to raise a question of fact on this issue. Therefore, petitioner's application seeking possession of the forklift truck is granted.

In our view, however, the proof submitted by the parties did not support a summary disposition as to ownership of the clamp attachment. Petitioner alleged that the truck and the clamp were considered to be one unit, but respondent submitted proof that the clamp had been purchased separately by Villa D'Ingianni Winery several years before the forklift truck was first leased. Therefore, the matter is remitted to Supreme Court for a separate trial to determine ownership of the clamp attachment.


Summaries of

Skyline Vineyards, Inc. v. Moravec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Skyline Vineyards, Inc. v. Moravec

Case Details

Full title:SKYLINE VINEYARDS, INC., Appellant, v. BARNEY MORAVEC, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

American Pride Construction, Inc. v. Russ Freeman Excavating, Inc.

Pursuant to CPLR 5239, where, as here, there are disputed questions of fact, the court must order a separate…