Cole v. Stonefoot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cole v. Stonefoot

291 A.D.2d 871, 737 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1090

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 871 (Cole v. Stonefoot) 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

Cole v. Stonefoot, 291 A.D.2d 871, 737 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Gerace, J.), entered March 2, 2001, that denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Lisa L. Winkler Stonefoot (defendant). The assertion of defendant that plaintiff will be unable to prove at trial that she owes him money for medical treatment rendered is insufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Present— Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Gerace, J.), entered March 2, 2001, that denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Lisa L. Winkler Stonefoot (defendant). The assertion of defendant that plaintiff will be unable to prove at trial that she owes him money for medical treatment rendered is insufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Present— Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 871, 737 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-stonefoot-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack