Chase v. J.H. Electric of New York, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009-03701.,2009-01887. |
| Citation | 69 A.D.3d 802,2010 NY Slip Op 477,893 N.Y.S.2d 237 |
| Parties | JP MORGAN CHASE, Appellant, v. J.H. ELECTRIC OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (seeMatter of Aho,39 NY2d 241, 248[1976]).The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (seeCPLR 5501 [a][1]).
In 2007the plaintiff, as assignee of the receivables of Hallmark Electrical Supplies Corp.(hereinafter Hallmark), commenced this action to recover damages in the sum of $108,323.01 based on accounts receivables for goods sold and delivered by Hallmark to the defendant.The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, asserting that the complaint was conclusory and legally insufficient, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.We reverse.
"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and provide the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference"(Halliwell v Gordon,61 AD3d 932, 933[2009];seeAG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co.,5 NY3d 582, 591[2005];Leon v Martinez,84 NY2d 83, 87[1994];Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,43 NY2d 268, 275[1977]).The test to be applied is whether the complaint "gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments"(Moore v Johnson,147 AD2d 621, 621[1989], quotingPace v Perk,81 AD2d 444, 449[1981];seeConroy v Cadillac Fairview Shopping Ctr. Props. [Md.],143 AD2d 726[1988]).
Applying these principles to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC
...Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 177 (2d Cir.2004); accord JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of New York, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802, 803, 893 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (2d Dep't 2010). To start, the Court concludes that it is not necessary to resolve, as a factual matter, whe......
-
Travelers Cas. v. Dormitory Auth.-State
...breach." Nat'l Mkt. Share, Inc. v. Sterling Nat'l Bank, 392 F.3d 520, 525 (2d Cir.2004); accord JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of N.Y., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802, 893 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (2d Dep't 2010). 18 Subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation is founded on diversity of citizenship pursu......
-
Nat'l Gear & Piston, Inc. v. Cummins Power Sys., LLC
...performance under the contract, the defendants' breach of that contract, and resulting damages.” JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of N.Y., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802, 893 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (2010); see also Fischer & Mandell, LLP v. Citibank, N.A., 632 F.3d 793, 799 (2d Cir.2011) (“[A] breach of contr......
-
In Re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litigation. This Document Applies To: Case No.: 09-cv-23835-asg, Case No. 09-MD-2106-CIV.
...under the contract, (3) the defendant's breach of that contract, and (4) resulting damages. JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of New York, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 802, 893 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (2d Dept.2010). Here, Defendant Bank of America does not dispute the existence of a contract, Plaintiffs' perform......
-
Contract Law and the Hand Formula
...265 (frustration of purpose). 33. See id. § 350 (avoidable loss doctrine). 34. See JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of N.Y, Inc., 893 N.Y.S.2d 237 (App. Div. 2010) (stating that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are “the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance under t......