All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

• Decision Date: 08 September 2015
• Docket Number: 15212, 106037/11.
• Citation: All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 6751, 131 A.D.3d 834, 16 N.Y.S.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Parties: ALL STATE FLOORING DISTRIBUTORS, L.P., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MD FLOORS, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

131 A.D.3d 834

16 N.Y.S.3d 539

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06751

ALL STATE FLOORING DISTRIBUTORS, L.P., Plaintiff–Appellant

v.MD FLOORS, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

15212, 106037/11.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Sept. 8, 2015.

Hodgson Russ LLP, New York (Carmine J. Castellano of counsel), for appellant.

Greenberg & Stein P.C., New York (Ian Asch of counsel), for respondents.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered August 15, 2014, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sells wood flooring, and defendant Michael Savino owns defendant MD Floors, a flooring installer. Between October 2010 and May 2011, MD Floors purchased hardwood flooring from plaintiff for installation in a Manhattan apartment. Specifically, Savino ordered 3,600 square feet of wood flooring from plaintiff on behalf of MD Floors. Savino alleges, however, that one of the shipments from plaintiff contained faulty wood flooring, requiring MD Floors workers to spend extra time sorting through it. All State Flooring made a supplemental shipment of wood flooring to replace the flooring that had been found defective.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover $48,188.50 of wood flooring that was delivered to MD Floors. After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim (first claim) against MD Floors and its claim (fourth) against Savino personally based upon an alleged personal guaranty. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment dismissing MD Floors' first and second counterclaims against plaintiff. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion, finding that plaintiff had “default[ed]” on the motion by failing to appear for oral argument. Alternatively, Supreme Court denied the motion on the merits by finding triable issues of fact on both plaintiff's claims and MD Floors' counterclaims.

We now affirm the denial of the motion for summary judgment. We find, however, that Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff had “default [ed]” on this motion. We fail to perceive the conduct that constituted plaintiff's default. It was plaintiff who submitted the motion for summary judgment. Typically, a motion for summary judgment can be readily decided on the papers unless oral argument is mandated by the motion court as “necessary.” Nothing in the record before us suggests that the parties were on notice that oral argument was indispensable for resolution of plaintiff's motion. Indeed, when Supreme Court ultimately rendered its decision on the record, counsel for both parties were present. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by disposing of the motion on the procedural ground sua sponte imposed by the court.

On the merits, however, we agree with Supreme Court in all respects. Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against MD Floors or its claim against Savino. With regard to the breach of contract claim (first claim), plaintiff moved for summary judgment for the full amount alleged in the complaint. MD Floors, however, has submitted testimonial and documentary evidence tending to establish that it made partial payment to plaintiff.

With regard to its breach of contract claim for...