Legal Opinion
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Universal Housing Systems of America, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 15, 1980No. 78 Civ. 395 (VLB)PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, District Judge.
I
Plaintiffs Chromalloy American Corporation (“Chromalloy”) and Arrow Group Industries (“Arrow”) seek to recover from defendants Universal Housing Systems (“Universal”) and Irwin Tobman on unpaid invoices and a promissory note. Defendants have counterclaimed for damages for breach of a joint venture agreement.
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.
For the reasons which follow, I find that the defendants have failed to establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact as to all but one of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Danann Realty Corp. v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Scheck v. FrancisNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
- Steinbeck v. GerosaNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
- Yonofsky v. WernickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- Backus Plywood Corp. v. Commercial Decal, Inc. And Alfred DuhrssenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- R.G. Group, Inc., and R.G. Restaurant Associates v. The Horn & Hardart Company, and Bojangles' of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1987
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,667 Reprosystem, B v. and N. Norman Muller, and Cross-Appellants v. Scm Corporation, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Nancy Ebker, Cross-Appellee v. Tan Jay International, Ltd. And Peter J. Nygard, Tan Jay International, Ltd., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Zeising v. KellyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.