Alchem Equities, Inc. v. Apple Bank for Savings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alchem Equities, Inc. v. Apple Bank for Savings

248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2050

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 338 (Alchem Equities, Inc. v. Apple Bank for Savings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alchem Equities, Inc. v. Apple Bank for Savings, 248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated April 4, 1997, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the proponents of a motion for partial summary judgment, the defendants had the burden to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all material issues of fact from the case (see, Wine-grad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the defendants failed to make this showing, their motion was properly denied.

Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover a broker’s commission, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated April 4, 1997, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the proponents of a motion for partial summary judgment, the defendants had the burden to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all material issues of fact from the case (see, Wine-grad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the defendants failed to make this showing, their motion was properly denied.

Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alchem-equities-inc-v-apple-bank-for-savings-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack