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.

International Customs Associates, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Citations: 233 A.D.2d 161; 649 N.Y.S.2d 789; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11671

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 13, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County, through Justice Herman Cahn, issued an order on September 22, 1995, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3212. This decision was unanimously reversed on the grounds of law, with costs awarded, resulting in the denial of the motion and the reinstatement of the complaint. The court emphasized that summary judgment is a severe remedy that should not be applied when there are doubts regarding the existence of a triable issue of fact, referencing cases such as Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos and Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. The court identified significant factual issues, particularly concerning whether the plaintiff's services constituted the practice of law as defined by Judiciary Law, which could affect the plaintiff’s claims for compensation under the contract. The decision was concurred by Justices Murphy, Milonas, Kupferman, Ross, and Mazzarelli.

Legal Issues Addressed

Existence of Triable Fact Issues

Application: The court found significant factual issues regarding whether the plaintiff's services constituted the practice of law, impacting the plaintiff’s claims for compensation.

Reasoning: The court identified significant factual issues, particularly concerning whether the plaintiff's services constituted the practice of law as defined by Judiciary Law, which could affect the plaintiff’s claims for compensation under the contract.

Summary Judgment under CPLR 3212

Application: The court reversed the summary judgment granted to the defendant, emphasizing that this remedy is severe and should not be applied when there are doubts about triable issues of fact.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that summary judgment is a severe remedy that should not be applied when there are doubts regarding the existence of a triable issue of fact, referencing cases such as Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos and Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.