From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cab Associates v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2005
14 A.D.3d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-06069

January 31, 2005.

In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), dated June 3, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims and, in effect, struck its first and second affirmative defenses for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of CPLR 3015 (a).

Before: Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Luciano and Lifson, JJ.


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, dismissing the defendant's first and second affirmative defenses; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The claimant failed to allege compliance with the condition precedent contained in the parties' contract. The defendant, in the first and second affirmative defenses asserted in its answer, denied such compliance with sufficient specificity and particularity to apprise the claimant of what it would have to establish at trial ( see CPLR 3015 [a]; Roel Partnership v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 780; CNY Mech. Assoc. v. Fidelity Guar. Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 989). Therefore, the Court of Claims improperly, in effect, struck those affirmative defenses.

However, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims was properly denied. The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that the additional costs which are the subject of the claims were subject to the dispute resolution procedure contained in the parties' contract ( cf. Rondout Elec. v. Monroe-Woodbury Cent. School Dist., 1 AD3d 423; Three Bros. Roofing Contrs. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 269 AD2d 523).


Summaries of

Cab Associates v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2005
14 A.D.3d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Cab Associates v. State

Case Details

Full title:CAB ASSOCIATES, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
789 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Edeman

Plaintiff has also failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal…

THE BANK OF NEW YORK v. KAHL

Based on the foregoing, and in keeping with the obvious homeowner-protective legislative intent of the…