Castellano v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castellano v. Doe

253 A.D.2d 447, 675 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8839

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 447 (Castellano v. Doe) 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

Castellano v. Doe, 253 A.D.2d 447, 675 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 10, 1997, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Frank Amalfitano and Eileen Amalfitano and the defendant Patricia Agelis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendants Frank Amalfitano, Eileen Amalfitano, and Patricia Agelis, since they established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of material issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 10, 1997, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Frank Amalfitano and Eileen Amalfitano and the defendant Patricia Agelis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendants Frank Amalfitano, Eileen Amalfitano, and Patricia Agelis, since they established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of material issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 447, 675 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castellano-v-doe-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack