Dixon v. Forman, 25 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Dixon v. Forman, 25 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rapaport v. Broadway Kitchens & Baths (nysupctnewyork, 2024-02-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rapaport v. Broadway Kitchens & Baths
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
The court concurs that Broadway Kitchen’s submission of only a memorandum of law by counsel, in opposition, is insufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Gruppo v London, 25 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. New York City Hous. Auth.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2023 · confidence medium
Plaintiff's allegation that, through discovery, she may establish that the City has a duty is unavailing (see Gruppo v London, 25 AD3d 486,487 [1st Dept 2006] [speculation that discovery may reveal grounds to establish liability is not sufficient to avoid summary judgment]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jock v. Landmark Healthcare Facilities, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Indeed, the basis of his knowledge and representations is not revealed or inferable and, given the failure to demonstrate that he had personal knowledge of the circumstances of this accident, the affidavit is without evidentiary value and insufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ showing (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]; Antokol & Coffin v Myers, 30 AD3d 843, 846 [2006]; Gruppo v London, 25 AD3d 486, 487 [2006]; Wechsler v People, 13 AD3d 941, 944 [2004]; Webb v Tire & Brake Distrib., Inc., 13 AD3d 835, 837-838 [2004]; see also CPLR 3212 [b]; Vermette v Kenworth Truck …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phyllis Dixon
v.
Thomas Forman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 24, 2006.
25 A.D.3d 486
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 28, 2005, awarding plaintiffs the principal amount of $119,500 and dismissing the counterclaims, upon the prior grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the denial of defendants’ cross motion for discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action for return of their down payment on the purchase of a cooperative apartment. After plaintiffs established a prima facie case that they had submitted their application in good faith, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact to demonstrate that there was a modification of the contract. Defendants failed to produce evidence that plaintiffs had agreed to the creation of the trust or to the other conditions imposed by the Board (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). There was no evidence that plaintiffs had modified the contract, and, in any event, there was no evidence that defendants detrimentally relied on such a modification.

Defendants’ counterclaims were properly dismissed. They failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would aid in their defense. The court properly granted summary judgment even though discovery was incomplete (Doherty v City of New York, 16 AD3d 124 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.