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.
St. Clare Development Corp., plaintiff-respondent, v. Michael Porges, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants; St. Clare Development Corp., et al., third-party defendants-respondents.
Argued-January 19, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered October 1, 2008, as granted those branches of the motion of the plaintiff and the third-party defendants St. Clare Development Corp., Jay Monroe, and Barbara Monroe, which were for summary judgment dismissing their first, second, third, and fifth affirmative defenses, their third counterclaim to the extent that it seeks damages for breach of the Housing Merchant Implied Warranty, their fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims insofar as asserted against St. Clare Development Corp., and the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh third-party causes of action insofar as asserted against Jay Monroe and Barbara Monroe, and granted the separate motion of the third-party defendant Adam Chorzepa, d/b/a Diamond Custom Construction, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and third-party causes of action at issue. The only viable affirmative defenses and claims of the defendant third-party plaintiffs were against the respondent St. Clare Development Corp. for breach of the limited warranty issued by it to them and for breach of the escrow agreement entered into between it and them. In opposition, the defendants third-party plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and third-party causes of action at issue.
FISHER, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-10501 (Index No. 17672 /03)
Decided: February 16, 2010
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)