Baum Investments, Inc. v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baum Investments, Inc. v. Roberts

299 A.D.2d 306, 749 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10501

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 306 (Baum Investments, Inc. v. Roberts) 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

Baum Investments, Inc. v. Roberts, 299 A.D.2d 306, 749 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money owed on a loan, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated August 28, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, entered August 2, 2001, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $30,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320) and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money owed on a loan, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated August 28, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court, entered August 2, 2001, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $30,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320) and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 306, 749 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-investments-inc-v-roberts-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack