Summary
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying both the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on a breach-of-partnership-agreement claim and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court also upheld permission to amend a notice of pendency to correct a typographical error and to extend the notice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on their breach-of-partnership-agreement claim.
- Whether defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
- Whether the court properly granted plaintiffs leave to amend a notice of pendency to correct a minor typographical error and properly extended the notice.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment because they failed to establish prima facie the absence of material issues of fact concerning the alleged breach of the partnership agreement.
- Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because they failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and their submissions revealed material issues of fact with respect to each cause of action.
- The court properly granted plaintiffs leave to amend the notice of pendency to correct a minor typographical error in the property's legal description and properly extended the notice of pendency.
Key quotations
“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (935)
“Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (935)
Factual background
The action included claims for damages arising from an alleged breach of a partnership agreement and concerned real property described in a notice of pendency. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, while defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint. The parties' submissions disclosed material factual issues, and the notice of pendency contained a minor typographical error in the property's legal description.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied plaintiffs summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, denied defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend and extend a notice of pendency. The Appellate Division affirmed those portions of the order that were appealed and cross-appealed from.