Sample Litigation Document created by a lawyer at the
law firm of Peter M. Agulnick, P.C.:
Affidavit in Opposition to motion for summary
judgment based upon account stated and crossmotion for discovery
A lawyer at this office can handle this or other matters for you. Please contact us
for a free with an attorney. See www.agulnicklaw.com
- NOTE: Names of parties and, perhaps, other information has been changed or redacted to protect the privacy of this law firm's
clients.
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HERAEUS JONES INC.,
Plaintiff,
Index No. ___________
NOTICE OF CROSSMOTION
-againstSMITH DENTAL LAB INC.,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
(AND OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS
UNDERLYING
MOTION)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the affidavit of Lawrence SMITH sworn to
April 26, 2005, the affirmation of Peter M. Agulnick, Esq., dated April 26, 2005, the
annexed exhibits, and upon all prior pleadings and proceedings, Defendant SMITH
DENTAL LAB INC. will cross-move this Court at the at Part 32, of this Court at the
courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, Room 325, New York, NY, on May 2, 2005 at
9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel or pro se parties can be heard, for an Order
containing the following relief:
(A)
pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Defendants answer and
sending this case to inquest or, in the alternative, precluding
Defendant from offering into evidence any of the items requested in
Plaintiffs discovery demands or, in the alternative, compelling
Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs discovery demands by a
date certain; and
(B)
such other relief that is appropriate.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering
papers in opposition to this motion, if any, are to be served at least seven days prior to the
return date of this motion.
Dated: New York, New York
April 26, 2005
Yours, etc.,
PETER M. AGULNICK, P.C.
By: ____________________________
Peter M. Agulnick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SMITH DENTAL LAB INC.
321 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10007-1111
(212) 571-2266
TO:
ABLOLISTA & ASSOCIATES P.L.L.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HERAEUS JONES, INC.
663 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10001
(212) 555-5555
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HERAEUS JONES INC.,
Plaintiff,
-againstSMITH DENTAL LAB INC.,
Index No. ________
AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF CROSS
MOTION/OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
State of New York
)
) ss:
County of New York )
LAWRENCE SMITH, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
I am a corporate officer of Defendant SMITH DENTAL LAB INC. As
such, I am fully familiar with the facts of this case based upon my own first-hand
personal knowledge.
2.
I submit this affirmation in support of the present cross-motion seeking the
following relief:
(A)
pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Defendants answer
and sending this case to inquest or, in the alternative, precluding
Defendant from offering into evidence any of the items requested in
Plaintiffs discovery demands or, in the alternative, compelling
Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs discovery demands by a
date certain; and
(B)
3.
such other relief that is appropriate.
I also submit this affirmation in opposition to Plaintiff HERAEUS JONES
INC.s motion for summary judgment (Notice of Motion, dated March 22, 2005, and
supporting papers).
CROSS-MOTION
4.
With regard to the cross-motion, my attorney has informed me (and also
submitted an affirmation annexed directly behind this affidavit) of the following:
5.
On February 27, 2005, Defendant SMITH served a Demand for Discovery
and Inspection and Combined Demand on Plaintiff. A true and correct copy is annexed
here as Exhibit A.
6.
To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to this discovery demand and its
time to do so has expired.
summary judgment.
Despite discovery being overdue, Plaintiff has moved for
Plaintiffs failure to provide discovery has hindered SMITHs
ability to defend this case and properly oppose Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
motion.
7.
Accordingly, this Court should grant the cross-motion.
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS UNDERLYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
8.
Despite discovery being outstanding, Plaintiff has moved this Court for
summary judgment on its account stated cause of action only.
9.
As discussed below, this Court should deny this motion not only because
discovery is outstanding, but also because numerous issues of fact exist making this case
woefully inappropriate for summary-judgment disposition.
10.
To start, Plaintiff-Movants affidavits assertion at paragraph 7 that I never
protested the invoices is utterly wrong; however, this is not surprising because
Plaintiffs affidavit appears to be a boilerplate hand-write-in-the-blanks affidavit used in
many different cases.
11.
Plaintiff allegedly shipped dental ovens to my company.
The ovens,
however, were defective and inoperable. The first invoice I received was on or about 611-2003 (this contradicts Plaintiffs affidavit). Shortly after the delivery of the ovens
(and the first invoice), I complained to Dennis Fraiolla, who is a employee or officer of
Plaintiff. Specifically, I told him, among other things, that the lifting beds on the ovens
were not working. Moreover, I complained that the manual sent with the ovens was in
German not English.
12.
In fact, Mr. Fraiolla, himself, acknowledged the problem with the ovens.
He sent parts to try and fix the ovens, but to no avail. Further, I also complained to
Barbara Beddia, another employee of Plaintiff.
13.
Had Plaintiff provided discovery, there would be documentary proof of
my complaints and even that Plaintiff shipped parts to me in direct response to my
complaints about the ovens being inoperable and defective. Interestingly, Plaintiffs
Beddia affidavit states that it is based upon a review of the books and records of the
plaintiff, kept in the regular course of business. These books and records have never
been disclosed to Defendant SMITH -- discovery is outstanding.
14.
My attorney informed that the First Department holds that oral objections
to an account stated are sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Prudential
Building Maintance Corp v. Burton Siedman Associates, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 519, 519, 445
N.Y.S.2d 758, 758 (1st Dept 1982). Moreover, the present affidavit provides sufficient
factual detail warranting the denial of Plaintiffs summary-judgment motion on its
account stated claim. See Fensterstock & Parnters, LLP v. Shapiro, 7 Misc. 3 1002(a),
2005 WL 736620 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2005).
15.
Clearly, the foregoing issues of fact and lack of discovery require this
Court to deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Defendant SMITH DENTAL LAB INC. requests that, this
Court issue an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Plaintiffs pleadings and
dismissing this case, in the alternative, precluding Plaintiff from offering into evidence
any of the items requested in Defendants discovery demands or, in the alternative,
compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs discovery demands by a date
certain; and such other relief that is appropriate. In addition, Defendant SMITH DENTAL
LAB INC. requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its
entirety and such other relief that may be appropriate.
________________________________
LAWRENCE SMITH
Sworn to me this _____ day of
__________, 2005
____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HERAEUS JONES INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Index No. 3381/05
AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT OF CROSSMOTION
SMITH DENTAL LAB INC.,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PETER M. AGULNICK, an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the
State of New York, affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:
1.
I am a principal of Peter M. Agulnick, P.C., counsel of record for
Defendant SMITH DENTAL LAB. As such, I am fully familiar with this matter based
upon a review of the file maintained in my office.
2.
I submit this affirmation in support of the present cross-motion seeking the
following relief:
(A)
pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Defendants answer
and sending this case to inquest or, in the alternative, precluding
Defendant from offering into evidence any of the items requested in
Plaintiffs discovery demands or, in the alternative, compelling
Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs discovery demands by a
date certain; and
(B)
such other relief that is appropriate.
CROSS-MOTION
5.
On February 27, 2005, Defendant SMITH served a Demand for Discovery
and Inspection and Combined Demand on Plaintiff. A true and correct copy is annexed
here as Exhibit A.
6.
To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to this discovery demand and its
time to do so has expired.
summary judgment.
Despite discovery being overdue, Plaintiff has moved for
Plaintiffs failure to provide discovery has hindered SMITHs
ability to defend this case and properly oppose Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
motion.
7.
Accordingly, this Court should grant the cross-motion.
WHEREFORE, Defendant SMITH DENTAL LAB INC. requests that, this
Court issue an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3126, striking Plaintiffs pleadings and
dismissing this case, in the alternative, precluding Plaintiff from offering into evidence
any of the items requested in Defendants discovery demands or, in the alternative,
compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs discovery demands by a date
certain; and such other relief that is appropriate. In addition, Defendant SMITH DENTAL
LAB INC. requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its
entirety and such other relief that may be appropriate.
Dated: New York, New York
April 26, 2005
__________________________________
PETER M. AGULNICK
