Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case under CPLR article 4, the petitioner sought to enforce a Supreme Court judgment from Kings County to recover possession of real property, inventory, and equipment from the appellant. The order, entered by Justice Shaw on November 17, 1995, affirmed the petitioner's motion. The appellant contended that a jury trial was necessary under CPLR 410 due to alleged factual disputes, but the court found no such disputes existed. Special proceedings initiated by order to show cause, akin to motions for summary judgment, require hearings only on disputed factual issues, which were absent in this instance. Pursuant to a settlement agreement from June 1995, the petitioner was entitled to a judgment by confession under CPLR 3218 following the appellant's default. Claims of unfair business practices were rejected, as the competing franchise store was outside the appellant's designated exclusive territory. The court's decision, which dismissed the appellant's additional arguments, was concurred by Justices Bracken, Thompson, Pizzuto, and Santucci, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's ruling with costs awarded to the petitioner.
Legal Issues Addressed
Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner successfully enforced a Supreme Court judgment to recover possession of property, inventory, and equipment from the appellant.
Reasoning: The appeal arises from an order entered on November 17, 1995, by Justice Shaw, which granted the petitioner’s motion to recover possession of real property, inventory, and equipment from the appellant.
Exclusive Territory and Unfair Business Practicessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim of unfair business practices was dismissed because the competing store was outside the appellant's exclusive territory.
Reasoning: The court found no merit in the appellant's claim of unfair business practices due to the petitioner opening a competing franchise store nearby, as the store was located five miles away in Queens, well outside the appellant's 'exclusive territory' of one and a half miles in Brooklyn.
Judgment by Confession under CPLR 3218subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner was entitled to a judgment by confession due to the appellant's default under a settlement agreement.
Reasoning: In June 1995, the appellant and petitioner entered a settlement agreement, allowing the petitioner to obtain a judgment by confession under CPLR 3218 if the appellant defaulted.
Right to a Jury Trial under CPLR 410subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's request for a jury trial was denied because no factual disputes necessitating a hearing were identified.
Reasoning: The appellant argued for a jury trial on factual issues per CPLR 410, asserting that summary disposition was inappropriate. However, it was noted that special proceedings initiated by order to show cause are similar to summary judgment motions, requiring hearings on disputed factual issues relevant to the case.