Ehrlich v. Amer. Moninger Greenhouse

3 Citing briefs

  1. Henry T. Lau, Appellant,v.Margaret E. Pescatore Parking, Inc. et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed November 16, 2017

    Mere conclusions or suppositions are insufficient to oppose a prima facie showing of summary judgment. See, S.J. Capelin Associates v. Globe Mfg. Co., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 313 N.E.2d 776, 357 N.Y.S.2d 478 (1974); Ehrlich v. American Moninga Greenhouse Manufacturing Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 259, 257 N.E.2d 890, 309 N.Y.S.2d 341(1970); Blankman v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point, 249 A.D.2d 349, 350, 670 N.Y.S.2d 802 (2d Dep’t 1998). We submit that what the plaintiff offered in opposition is fraught with innuendo and conjecture.

  2. Kimble et al v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to Motion re Third MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment First Counterclaim, 47 First MOTION for Summary Judgment re: 2nd Counterclaim, 51 Fifth MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Definition of "net product sales", 48 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Counterclaim #4, 50 Fourth MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Third counterclaim

    Filed September 14, 2009

    Such would at least be needed to prevent summary judgment for the plaintiff. 26 N.Y.2d at 259. Just as in Ehrlich, all the documentary evidence presented by plaintiffs conclusively indicates that they are entitled to summary judgment.

  3. Mooney v. AXA Advisors, L.L.C. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Counts I and II fail to plead an antitrust violation. Because

    Filed April 10, 2014

    To the contrary, his allegations about his compensation merely help to explain the ambiguous terms “consideration received” and “compensation.” See Ehrlich v. Am. Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 258 (1970) (noting that the recital of “value received” on a note did not prevent defendants from rebutting the recital because “recitation of receipt of consideration is a mere admission of fact which, like all such admissions, may be explained or disputed by parol evidence” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). AXA offered little by way of contesting Mooney’s allegations under the Trademark Licensing Agreement except to say that the terms of that Agreement are not ambiguous.