187 A.D.2d 493 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1992
In consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, conspiracy, and tortious interference with contractual relations, Fitness Place Rockville Centre, N. Y., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated October 26, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims against the plaintiff in Action No. 1, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Frank Marzano and Albert Pennisi in Action No. 2 which was to dismiss the third cause of action asserted in the appellant’s complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We reject the contention of the appellant (hereinafter Fitness) that its motion in Action No. 1 for summary judgment on its counterclaims was improperly denied. Summary judgment is a drastic measure and it should not be granted if there is any question as to the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364; Burger v Brookhaven Med. Arts Bldg., 131 AD2d 622, 623). Here, there are questions of fact as to whether the financial information supplied by the appellant to the landlord fulfilled its contractual obligations and whether the delay of the plaintiff (hereinafter New Dimensions) in seeking the landlord’s approval for assignment of the lease from New Dimensions to Fitness contributed to the alleged breach of a contract between them.