Bello v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore HARWOOD
Citation587 N.Y.S.2d 1,185 A.D.2d 262
Parties, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,901 Carl BELLO, et al., Appellants, v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Respondent.
Decision Date13 July 1992

Page 1

587 N.Y.S.2d 1
185 A.D.2d 262, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,901
Carl BELLO, et al., Appellants,
v.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
July 13, 1992.

Thomas J. Sinnickson, P.C., Center Moriches (Gerald S. Chapman, of counsel), for appellants.

D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino, Mineola (Donald J. Schwartz and Marjorie E. Bornes, of counsel), and Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City (Yvonne S. Quinn and David A. Heiner, Jr., of counsel) for respondent (one brief filed).

New York State Consumer Protection Bd., Albany (Patricia L.R. Rodriguez and Bob Cohen, of counsel), amicus curiae.

Before HARWOOD, J.P., and BALLETTA, LAWRENCE and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and for violation of the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340), the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), dated June 15, 1990, which treated the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 as one for summary judgment, and having done so, granted that motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as pertains to the plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by an order of the same court, dated January 30, 1991, made upon renewal (see, Bello v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 587 N.Y.S.2d 209 [decided herewith]; and it is further,

Page 2

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the [185 A.D.2d 263] provision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7); as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

Although we believe that the parties charted a course for summary judgment on the issue of whether there exists a contractual relationship between them (see, Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 320, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1), we cannot conclude on this record, as did the Supreme Court, that it is "unequivocally clear" that this was so with respect to the remainder of the case (Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, supra at 320, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1; John and Mary Markle Found. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 173 A.D.2d 784, 570 N.Y.S.2d 647; cf. Monteferrante v. New York City Fire Dept., 63 A.D.2d 576, 404 N.Y.S.2d 629, aff'd for reasons stated, 47 N.Y.2d 737, 417 N.Y.S.2d 253, 390 N.E.2d 1177). However, this does not require reversal of the order appealed from, as this court may pass upon the sufficiency of the complaint, in any event (see, Barclay Arms v. Barclay Arms...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Pet Time Enters. v. Town of Islip, 2020-34755
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 15 Enero 2020
    ...F.Supp. 340 [EDNY 1998]; Newsday, Inc. v Fantastic Mind, 237 A.D.2d 497, 655 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2d Dept 1997]; Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 587 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2d Dept 1992]; Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 461, 552 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1988]). Plaintiffs ......
  • Pet Time Enters. v. Town of Islip, Index 603669/2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 15 Enero 2020
    ...F.Supp. 340 [EDNY 1998]; Newsday, Inc. v Fantastic Mind, 237 A.D.2d 497, 655 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2d Dept 1997]; Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 587 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2d Dept 1992]; Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 461, 552 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1988]). Plaintiffs ......
  • Glitman v. State, 2021-51283
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • 23 Noviembre 2021
    ...the claim "in light of the evidentiary material submitted in conjunction with the CPLR 3211 motion" (Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 263 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761 [1992]; see CPLR 3211[c] [allowing either party to submit admissible evidence]; Chrysler Capital C......
  • Glitman v. State, Claim 133807
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • 23 Noviembre 2021
    ...the claim "in light of the evidentiary material submitted in conjunction with the CPLR 3211 motion" (Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 263 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761 [1992]; see CPLR 3211[c] [allowing either party to submit admissible evidence]; Chrysler Capital C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Pet Time Enters. v. Town of Islip, 2020-34755
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 15 Enero 2020
    ...F.Supp. 340 [EDNY 1998]; Newsday, Inc. v Fantastic Mind, 237 A.D.2d 497, 655 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2d Dept 1997]; Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 587 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2d Dept 1992]; Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 461, 552 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1988]). Plaintiffs ......
  • Pet Time Enters. v. Town of Islip, Index 603669/2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 15 Enero 2020
    ...F.Supp. 340 [EDNY 1998]; Newsday, Inc. v Fantastic Mind, 237 A.D.2d 497, 655 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2d Dept 1997]; Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 587 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2d Dept 1992]; Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 461, 552 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1988]). Plaintiffs ......
  • Glitman v. State, 2021-51283
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • 23 Noviembre 2021
    ...the claim "in light of the evidentiary material submitted in conjunction with the CPLR 3211 motion" (Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 263 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761 [1992]; see CPLR 3211[c] [allowing either party to submit admissible evidence]; Chrysler Capital C......
  • Glitman v. State, Claim 133807
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • 23 Noviembre 2021
    ...the claim "in light of the evidentiary material submitted in conjunction with the CPLR 3211 motion" (Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262, 263 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761 [1992]; see CPLR 3211[c] [allowing either party to submit admissible evidence]; Chrysler Capital C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT