Denton Publications, Inc. v. Lilledahl
| Decision Date | 25 July 1985 |
| Citation | 492 N.Y.S.2d 171,112 A.D.2d 658 |
| Parties | DENTON PUBLICATIONS, INC., Respondent, v. Sean LILLEDAHL et al., Doing Business as Free Trader, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Neverett & Asadourian, P.C., Plattsburgh (William Favreau, Plattsburgh, of counsel), for appellants.
Fitzpatrick, Bennett, Trombley & Ownes, P.C., Plattsburgh (William L. Owens, Plattsburgh, of counsel), for respondent.
KANE, J.P., and MAIN, CASEY, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 14, 1984 in Essex County, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Defendants are the owners of a weekly newspaper and, during the period commencing February 5, 1982 through April 19, 1984, called upon plaintiff to provide its printing needs. On May 29, 1984, after this relationship had soured, plaintiff commenced an action against defendants seeking to recover for unpaid printing services rendered. After defendants answered by a general denial, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which was granted in the sum of $8,161.72. Defendants appeal from the order granting that judgment.
Defendants contend that such a grant was in error for the reason that factual issues have been raised which make the granting of summary judgment inappropriate. It is well and long established that since the drastic remedy of summary judgment is the equivalent of a trial (Falk v. Goodman, 7 N.Y.2d 87, 195 N.Y.S.2d 645, 163 N.E.2d 871), it must clearly appear that no triable issue of fact exists before the motion may be granted (Glick & Dolleck v. Tri-Pac Export Corp., 22 N.Y.2d 439, 293 N.Y.S.2d 93, 239 N.E.2d 725). However, to defeat a motion for summary judgment, one must lay bare in evidentiary form the evidence upon which he relies (Marine Midland Bank v. Hall, 74 A.D.2d 729, 425 N.Y.S.2d 693). Bald conclusory assertions, even if believable, are not enough to defeat summary judgment (Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 259, 309 N.Y.S.2d 341, 257 N.E.2d 890).
Our view of this record convinces us that the order of Special Term should be affirmed. The affidavit of plaintiff's office manager, Sandra Kaleita, avers that she met with defendant Rosa Lilledahl in October 1982 and that they arrived at an agreed figure as the amount due and the interest to be charged on the account. Kaleita further stated that they agreed on the form of the bills or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whalen v. Gerzof
...interest in Pearcove. Neither plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra; Denton Publ. v. Lilledahl, 112 A.D.2d 658, 492 N.Y.S.2d 171) nor her surmise, suspicion and conjecture (see, Shaw v. Time-Life Records, 38 N.Y.2d 201, 207, 379 N.Y.S.2d 390, 341......
-
Passonno v. Hall
...of a triable issue (Millerton Agway Coop. v. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57, 61, 268 N.Y.S.2d 18, 215 N.E.2d 341; Denton Pub. v. Lilledahl, 112 A.D.2d 658, 492 N.Y.S.2d 171) or where the issue is arguable (Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404, 165 N.Y.S.2d 498, 144......
-
Convenient Med. Care v. Med. Bus. Assoc.
...things out faster"; "[b]ald conclusory assertions, even if believable, are not enough to defeat summary judgment" (Denton Publs. v Lilledahl, 112 A.D.2d 658, 658-659). As to plaintiff's further contention that it refused payment because defendant breached the agreement by failing to timely ......
-
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. R.C. Sharp Development Corp.
...to come forward and demonstrate the presence of any triable issue of fact with regard to either action (see, Denton Pub. v. Lilledahl, App.Div.2d, 492 N.Y.S.2d 171 [1985] ). Summary judgment was properly Orders and judgments affirmed, with costs. CASEY, WEISS, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ., conc......