| Metropolitan Enters. NY v Khan Enter. Constr., Inc. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00344 [124 AD3d 609] |
| January 14, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Metropolitan Enterprises NY, Also Known asMetropolitan Enterprises, Inc., Appellant, v Khan Enterprise Construction, Inc.,et al., Respondents. |
Mastropietro-Frade, LLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Manny A. Frade of counsel), forappellant.
Sullivan Gardner P.C., New York, N.Y. (Brian Gardner of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated October 12,2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Khan Enterprise Construction, Inc.,pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiff's case, for judgment as a matterof law dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion of the defendantKhan Enterprise Construction, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter oflaw dismissing the complaint is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Kings County, for a new trial.
" 'A trial court's grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter oflaw is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there isno rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmovingparty' " (Clarke vPhillips, 112 AD3d 872, 874 [2013], quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). " 'In considering the motion, the trial court must affordthe party opposing the motion every inference which may be properly drawn from thefacts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to thenonmovant' " (Clarke v Phillips, 112 AD3d at 874, quoting Miller v Bah, 74 AD3d761, 763 [2010]).
To create a binding contract, there must be a meeting of the minds as to the materialterms of the agreement (see Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v NewYork State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 589 [1999]; Highland HC, LLC v Scott,113 AD3d 590, 594 [2014]; Vibar Constr., Inc. v Konetchy, 78 AD3d 819, 820 [2010]).Stated differently, "there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite toassure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms"(Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. ofTransp., 93 NY2d at 589). However, "[w]hile there must be a manifestation ofmutual assent to essential terms, parties also should be held to their promises and courtsshould not be 'pedantic or meticulous' in interpreting contract expressions" (CobbleHill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 [1989],quoting 1 Corbin, Contracts § 95 at 396 [1963]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that the[*2]plaintiff established, prima facie, that an enforceablecontract existed between it and the defendant Khan Enterprise Construction, Inc.(hereinafter Khan). The evidence established that the plaintiff and Khan entered into acontract pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to provide certain scaffolding andsidewalk bridging equipment for use by Khan in connection with three schoolconstruction projects. The plaintiff sent six proposals to Khan, which detailed the scopeof the work, referred to the location of the projects, and contained the rental period andprice to be paid. The proposals were signed by Khan's representative, the plaintiff fullyperformed its obligations under the proposals, and Khan made partial payments to theplaintiff in connection with the proposals (see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v Scheider,40 NY2d 1069 [1976]). Contrary to Khan's contention, viewing this evidence in the lightmost favorable to the plaintiff (see Clarke v Phillips, 112 AD3d at 874), itestablished, prima facie, that the plaintiff and Khan reached a "meeting of the minds" asto the material terms of their agreement (Vibar Constr., Inc. v Konetchy, 78AD3d at 820).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied Khan's motion pursuant toCPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiff's case, for judgment as a matter of law.Therefore, we reverse the order appealed from, deny Khan's motion pursuant to CPLR4401, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial (see Palladino v McCormick,122 AD3d 813 [2014]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reachedin light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.