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.
MZM CORP., appellant, v. John IWASZKIEWICZ, d/b/a Audio Video Connoisseur, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated January 24, 2008, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 2, 2008, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on his counterclaims, is in favor of the defendant and against it in the principal sum of $104,967.95.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on his counterclaims is denied, and the order dated January 2, 2008, is modified accordingly.
The plaintiff, a general contractor hired to renovate a private apartment, entered into a subcontract with the defendant for the provision and installation of certain audio-visual equipment. After the defendant allegedly did not complete the installation of this equipment, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract. In his answer, the defendant alleged counterclaims sounding, inter alia, in quantum meruit.
As the evidence submitted by the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact regarding, among other things, whether he satisfied his obligations pursuant to the subcontract, whether the subcontract between the parties governed the same subject matter as the events for which he seeks recovery in quantum meruit, and the reasonable value of his services, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on his counterclaims (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388-389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
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 13, 2009
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)