Case Name: Ira Daniel Tokayer et al., Appellants, v. Seetin Design, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2005-10-04
Citations: 22 A.D.3d 226
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ira Daniel Tokayer et al., Appellants, v Seetin Design, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Ira Daniel Tokayer et al., Appellants, v Seetin Design, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
[801 NYS2d 600]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered May 25, 2005, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Inasmuch as the record presents a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs repudiated the contract sued upon, plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment upon their cause of action for breach of contract (see Tenavision, Inc. v Neuman, 45 NY2d 145, 150 [1978]; Gardiner Intl., Inc. v J.W. Townsend & Assoc., Inc., 13 AD3d 246 [2004]; cf. Key Bank of N.Y. v K.H. Assoc., 210 AD2d 769 [1994]). Nor were plaintiffs entitled to summary judgment upon their Lien Law cause of action. The record, which includes extensive documentary evidence supportive of an inference that defendant contractor appropriately applied the funds paid it under the subject home improvement contract, did not permit the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that trust funds were diverted. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.