Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc.

840 N.E.2d 1024, 5 N.Y.3d 859, 807 N.Y.S.2d 11

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 17, 2005·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division majority that defendants Bock Water Heaters, Inc. and Honeywell, Inc. made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions.

*861 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division majority that defendants Bock Water Heaters, Inc. and Honeywell, Inc. made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions.

*861 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc., 840 N.E.2d 1024, 5 N.Y.3d 859, 807 N.Y.S.2d 11 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

840 N.E.2d 1024 (Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related