Bullard v. Bender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bullard v. Bender

251 A.D.2d 526, 673 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 526 (Bullard v. Bender) 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

Bullard v. Bender, 251 A.D.2d 526, 673 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In [527]*527an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 21, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. After the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff offered nothing but conclusory assertions and failed to present any genuine factual issue which would preclude summary relief (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065; Sarver v Martyn, 161 AD2d 623). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In [527]*527an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 21, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. After the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff offered nothing but conclusory assertions and failed to present any genuine factual issue which would preclude summary relief (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065; Sarver v Martyn, 161 AD2d 623). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 526, 673 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-bender-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack