You are here: / / THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED...
, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion; (2) there were questions of fact about whether there was a de facto merger of two defendant corporations; and (3) there was a question of fact whether the breach of contract action was barred by the statute of frauds (part performance). The “de facto merger” and “part performance” discussions are substantive and too detailed to summarize here. The Second Department noted that even inaction will satisfy part performance of a contract when inaction is a term of the oral agreement:

Supreme Court erred in converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). The plaintiff objected to this procedure on the ground that he had not received any discovery, and no preliminary conference had taken place due to the pendency of the motion to dismiss, which was made only one month after this action was commenced. Indeed, a motion for summary judgment is premature when a party had no reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, and discovery may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the complaint (see CPLR 3212[f] … ). Here, issue was not yet joined and there had been no opportunity to engage in discovery regarding the plaintiff’s allegations of successor liability and fraud with respect to the apparent transformation of [defendant] Labs into [defendant] Diagnostics. Therefore, converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment was premature.

… The defendants’ evidence did not establish as a matter of law that Diagnostics was not the de facto continuation of Labs … . * * *

Part performance in the form of inaction may … suffice to invoke the doctrine, if inaction is pleaded as a term of the oral agreement and alleged to be unequivocally referable to the oral agreement, and the element of detrimental reliance is present … . … [D]efendants failed to demonstrate … that the plaintiff did not partially perform by refraining from seeking to confirm the arbitration award, thereby rendering the statute of frauds inapplicable. Menche v CDx Diagnostics, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05964, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

You might also like
THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 308 (4); THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility
Issuance of a Positive Declaration that the Requested Rezoning May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and the Requirement that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Be Drawn Up, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute an “Injury” Sufficient to Make the Matter Ripe for Court Review—All the Relevant Factors Discussed in Depth
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE 2011 ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE NEVER STARTED RUNNING (SECOND DEPT).
SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW (SCAR) CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation
CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS.
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN... ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL...