Maxam v. Kucharczyk
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 02880,29 N.Y.S.3d 683,138 A.D.3d 1268 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 520911. |
| Parties | June MAXAM, Appellant, v. Barbara KUCHARCZYK, Individually and Doing Business as Eleventh Hour Rescue–NY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
138 A.D.3d 1268
29 N.Y.S.3d 683
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 02880
June MAXAM, Appellant,
v.
Barbara KUCHARCZYK, Individually and Doing Business as Eleventh Hour Rescue–NY, Respondent.
520911.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
April 14, 2016.
June Maxam, Chestertown, appellant pro se.
Young/Sommer LLC, Albany (Kristin Laviolette Pratt of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court (Chauvin, J.), entered December 4, 2014 in Warren County, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Shortly after adopting a dog from an animal shelter, plaintiff decided not to keep it and contacted defendant, who places dogs in new homes through her charitable organization known as Eleventh Hour Rescue–NY. Plaintiff transferred the dog to defendant pursuant to a written agreement executed by both parties, and defendant then posted a picture of the dog on a social media website, resulting in its adoption. Apparently offended by defendant's decision to post the picture, plaintiff commenced this action seeking a preliminary injunction and an order of replevin requiring that the dog be returned to her possession. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. After converting defendant's cross motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and allowing the parties additional time to submit further evidence, Supreme Court denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and granted defendant's cross motion dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter
of law by producing a clear, complete, signed writing (see generally W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert M. Schneider, M.D., P.C. v. Licciardi, 19-0120
...Therefore, as "the record discloses no consideration for any such agreement ... it [is] unenforceable" ( Maxam v. Kucharczyk , 138 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 29 N.Y.S.3d 683 [3d Dept. 2016] ). Even assuming the agreement was enforceable, Defendant has raised a question of fact regarding the voidabi......
-
Mid-Hudson Valley Fed. Credit Union v. Quartararo & Lois, PLLC
...of action should have been dismissed (see Weinberg v. Sultan, 142 A.D.3d 767, 768–769, 37 N.Y.S.3d 13 [2016] ; Maxam v. Kucharczyk, 138 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 29 N.Y.S.3d 683 [2016] ). In light of our determination, defendants' alternative contention that the fraud cause of action is duplicativ......
-
Giuffre Motor Car Co. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.
...New York law, a party may invalidate a contract by satisfying the elements of a fraudulent inducement claim. See Maxam v. Kucharczyk, 29 N.Y.S.3d 683, 685 (App. Div. 2016) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the contract was invalid because she failed to state a cause of ac......
-
Kinney v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
...York law, a party may invalidate a contract by satisfying the elements of a fraudulent-inducement claim. See Maxam v. Kucharczyk , 138 A.D.3d 1268, 29 N.Y.S.3d 683, 685 (2016) (holding that plaintiff failed to establish contract was invalid because she failed to state cause of action for fr......