Chowdhury v. Kasham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chowdhury v. Kasham

273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6502

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

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 266 (Chowdhury v. Kasham) 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

Chowdhury v. Kasham, 273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs produced evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of triable issues of fact (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs produced evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of triable issues of fact (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-kasham-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack