New York Court of Appeals, 1986

MW Zack Metal Co. v. INT'L NAVIGATION CORP. OF MONROVIA

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 1, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 892; 501 N.Y.S.2d 803; 492 N.E.2d 1219; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17999

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Royal Mortgage Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
Bernstein ex rel. Commissioner of Banking & Insurance of Vermont v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
Najjar Group, LLC v. West 56th Hotel LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Najjar Group, LLC v. West 56th Hotel LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Coppa v. LaSpina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Compania Tauben S. A. v. Stolt Tankers Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1998)
Kilfoil v. Town of Southold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Rosenthal v. Village of Quogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Michaelides v. Martone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Hudson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (112 AD2d 865). We add that there was no prejudice to plaintiff in the Appellate Division’s having dealt with the motions as ones for summary judgment even though Special Term’s consideration of them was only as motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants’ motion and cross motion were stated to have been made pursuant to CPLR 3212. Moreover, plaintiff’s answering affidavit acknowledged in several places that defendants’ motions were for summary judgment and plaintiff responded to the motions by setting forth factual data in support of the allegations of the complaint (Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 103; O’Hara v Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363, 367-368; see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 281-283).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, *896 Kaye, Titone and Hancock, Jr. Taking no part: Judge Alexander.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.