Coury v. Arcuri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coury v. Arcuri

262 A.D.2d 268, 689 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5866

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 268 (Coury v. Arcuri) 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

Coury v. Arcuri, 262 A.D.2d 268, 689 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the plaintiffs alleged one-half interest in certain bank accounts, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered March 27, 1998, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that triable issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment in this case. While the affidavits submitted by the defendants in opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie case for summary judgment are based on their alleged conversations with the decedent Mabel Coury, evidence excludable by CPLR 4519 may be considered to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307; McEvoy v Garcia, 114 AD2d 401; Tancredi v Mannino, 75 AD2d 579).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the plaintiffs alleged one-half interest in certain bank accounts, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered March 27, 1998, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that triable issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment in this case. While the affidavits submitted by the defendants in opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie case for summary judgment are based on their alleged conversations with the decedent Mabel Coury, evidence excludable by CPLR 4519 may be considered to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307; McEvoy v Garcia, 114 AD2d 401; Tancredi v Mannino, 75 AD2d 579).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 268, 689 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coury-v-arcuri-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack