Brischler v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brischler v. County of Westchester

260 A.D.2d 592, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 592 (Brischler v. County of Westchester) 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

Brischler v. County of Westchester, 260 A.D.2d 592, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for false arrest, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 17, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325). Since the plaintiffs’ opposing submissions [593]*593failed to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact, the court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364; Coughlin v Corbett, 251 AD2d 616; Mercantini v Harborfields Cent. School Dist., 253 AD2d 484; cf., Byrd v Middleton-Bond, 253 AD2d 510). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, 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 false arrest, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 17, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325). Since the plaintiffs’ opposing submissions [593]*593failed to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact, the court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364; Coughlin v Corbett, 251 AD2d 616; Mercantini v Harborfields Cent. School Dist., 253 AD2d 484; cf., Byrd v Middleton-Bond, 253 AD2d 510). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 592, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brischler-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack