Belluzzi v. Samburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belluzzi v. Samburg

276 A.D.2d 731, 715 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10940

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 731 (Belluzzi v. Samburg) 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

Belluzzi v. Samburg, 276 A.D.2d 731, 715 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Noel S. Samburg appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 20, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment because he failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Noel S. Samburg appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 20, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment because he failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 731, 715 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belluzzi-v-samburg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack