From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lighting Horizons, Inc. v. E.A. Kahn Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1986
120 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 19, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, motion granted, cross motion denied, the plaintiff is awarded the principal sum of $72,868 plus interest upon $58,756.52 of that sum from August 2, 1983, and interest upon $14,111.48 of that sum from July 29, 1983, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff properly submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form with its motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The defendant, in response, provided conclusory allegations that the plaintiff delivered defective fixtures and equipment, and made an unsubstantiated claim that there was a requirements contract between itself and the plaintiff, which the plaintiff breached. Mere allegations of delivery of defective materials, will not, without more, preclude a court from granting a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see, GTE Sylvania v Jupiter Supply Co., 51 A.D.2d 993, 994; General Bldg. Supply Corp. v Shapn, Inc., 35 A.D.2d 550, 551).

The defendant's parol recitation of the requirements contract, premised as it was upon a $135,000 budget, was not admissible, as the Statute of Frauds requires a writing for any contract concerning the sale of goods in excess of $500 to be enforced (UCC 2-201; Crabtree Automotive v BMW of N. Am., 105 A.D.2d 825, 826). In light of the failure of the defendant to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form or an acceptable excuse for not doing so, it has not made a sufficient showing to defeat the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, supra).

Since the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is being granted in its entirety, the defendant's cross motion to amend its answer is moot. A matter is moot when a determination is sought on a matter which, if rendered, could not have any practical effect on the existing controversy (Leonhart v McCormick, 395 F. Supp. 1073, 1077). Here, the granting of the summary judgment motion puts an immediate and permanent end to this case (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3212:1, p 424). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lighting Horizons, Inc. v. E.A. Kahn Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1986
120 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Lighting Horizons, Inc. v. E.A. Kahn Co.

Case Details

Full title:LIGHTING HORIZONS, INC., Appellant, v. E.A. KAHN CO., INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 19, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Del Carpio

Thus, the defendant mortgagor is not entitled to dismissal of the complaint. The branch of the defendant…

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. McPhillips

The court turns first to the cross motion because the resolution of such may render the motion-in-chief…