Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc. v. Restaurant Management by D.C. Corp.
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 18, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
Mikoll, J.P. reviewed an appeal concerning a July 25, 1995 order from the Supreme Court (Coutant, J.) in Broome County, which partially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought $410,500.19 for goods allegedly sold and delivered to Restaurant Management (RM) by D.C. Corporation, operating as Tony Roma’s, at five locations. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed $83,947.13 for goods delivered to 784 South Central Park Associates, Inc. The individual defendants, Joseph De Candía, Sr., Joseph De Candía, Jr., and Clara C. De Candía, were alleged to be personally liable based on guarantees.
Defendants refuted the claims, disputing the delivery and pricing of goods, and raised affirmative defenses. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on April 25, 1995, aimed to dismiss these defenses. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment against Associates and De Candía, Jr. but denied it for the remaining defendants, prompting this appeal.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' general denial of the claims justified summary judgment, citing CPLR 3016 (f). However, the court found that the defendants' denials encompassed all dealings, thus raising a factual issue requiring trial resolution. The denial of ownership and claims that goods were ordered by another entity created a genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that RM had ordered the goods, leaving the question of who accepted the goods unresolved. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment was upheld.
A prima facie case for account stated actions requires evidence of an account between the parties with a specified balance due. In this case, the accounts indicate five restaurants rather than RM as the purchaser, creating uncertainty about whether an account stated exists between the plaintiff and the defendants or the individual stores. The court denied summary judgment for these claims. Plaintiff argues that credit applications signed by the De Candías guarantee debts incurred by the restaurants. However, the application from De Candía, Sr. and his wife lacks a delivery address and does not specify quantities or prices, while De Candía, Jr.'s application only pertains to the Scarsdale store. This indicates that the agreement does not cover the other franchises. Additionally, there are unresolved issues regarding two other executed credit applications. The court upheld the denial of summary judgment, concluding that it has not been legally established that RM ordered or purchased goods for the five restaurants. The order is affirmed, with costs, and it was acknowledged that summary judgment against Associates and De Candía, Jr. was appropriate.
