descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

9310 Third Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Schaffer Food Service Co.

Citations: 210 A.D.2d 207; 620 N.Y.S.2d 255; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12323

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 4, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In an appeal regarding a breach of contract action, the defendant contests portions of a Supreme Court order issued on February 22, 1993. The order originally denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court modified the order by granting the defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action 13 through 18, which sought damages for conversion, due to the inability to identify the allegedly converted funds as specific chattels. Consequently, the court affirmed the order only in relation to the denial of the motion concerning the breach of contract and fraud claims, which were deemed adequately pleaded by the plaintiffs based on the complaint and supporting affidavit. Other arguments raised by the parties were found to lack merit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Conversion and Identifiability of Funds

Application: The court dismissed the causes of action for conversion because the funds in question could not be identified as specific chattels.

Reasoning: The appellate court modified the order by granting the defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action 13 through 18, which sought damages for conversion, due to the inability to identify the allegedly converted funds as specific chattels.

Merit of Additional Arguments

Application: The court found that other arguments presented by the parties did not have sufficient merit to affect the decision.

Reasoning: Other arguments raised by the parties were found to lack merit.

Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Claims

Application: The appellate court upheld the denial of summary judgment concerning the breach of contract claims, as the claims were deemed adequately pleaded.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed the order only in relation to the denial of the motion concerning the breach of contract and fraud claims, which were deemed adequately pleaded by the plaintiffs based on the complaint and supporting affidavit.