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 |
v.
J.H. ELECTRIC OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated January 20, 2009, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) a judgment of the same court entered March 30, 2009, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order is modified accordingly; and it is further,
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 (see Matter 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 (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
In 2007 the 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]; see AG 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...
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......
-
Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 08 Civ. 4810 (THK)
...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, whether F......