Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PREMIER LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC., appellant, v. ALSOL ENTERPRISES, LTD., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties' rights and obligations under a lease, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated April 14, 2003, which, inter alia, denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment releasing money held in escrow, and granted the defendant's cross motion for leave to amend its answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that it neither used nor occupied certain property owned by the defendant during the months of February, March, April, and May 2002 (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Therefore, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment releasing money held in escrow for the payment of use and occupancy during those months was properly denied (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Moreover, as there exists a triable issue of fact as to which party is entitled to the escrow funds, the defendant's cross motion for leave to amend its answer to include a counterclaim to recover these funds was not devoid of merit and, thus, was properly granted (see CPLR 3025[b]; Hall Signs v. Aries Striping, 236 A.D.2d 513, 654 N.Y.S.2d 621).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 12, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)