Friends of Avalon Preparatory School, Inc. v. Ehrenfeld
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- San Miguel v. QB & Son LLC (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
- Mazzurco v. PII Sam, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Denenberg v. Schaeffer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Connolly v. Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- JMF Consulting Group II, Inc. v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- JMF Consulting Group II, Inc. v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- A.A. Truck Renting Corp. v. Navistar, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Kermanshachi v. Kermanshachi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re the Estate of Feinne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Elbroji v. 22 East 54th Street Restaurant Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Bodisher v. Hofmann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Choudhry v. Five Star Contracting Companies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Seff v. Meltzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated October 23, 2002, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and for summary judgment on two of their counterclaims.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion and severing the defendants’ counterclaims; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the counterclaims.
We agree with the appellants’ contention that the complaint should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The appellants sufficiently established that the release included in a stipulation of settlement, executed in connection with a prior eviction proceeding, was intended to cover the subject matter of this action (see N.J. Boys v Eklecco, LLC, 2 AD3d 511 [2003]; National Sur. Corp. v Parisi & Son Constr., 239 AD2d 396 [1997]). Further, the respondents’ claim of fraud was insufficient to avoid the release (see Shklovskiy v Khan, 273 AD2d 371 [2000]).
The appellants correctly assert that the plaintiffs, who allege that the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement, may not use parol evidence to prove such an agreement since such proof contradicts the terms of the agreements executed by
However, contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on two of its counterclaims since there are questions of fact as to those counterclaims (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.