Cullen v. Emmanuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cullen v. Emmanuel

300 A.D.2d 531, 752 N.Y.S.2d 561

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 531 (Cullen v. Emmanuel) 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

Cullen v. Emmanuel, 300 A.D.2d 531, 752 N.Y.S.2d 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on a loan, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 31, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendants Daphne D. Emmanuel and Dimitrius Emmanuel for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the respondents’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, 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, inter alia, to recover on a loan, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 31, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendants Daphne D. Emmanuel and Dimitrius Emmanuel for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the respondents’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 531, 752 N.Y.S.2d 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullen-v-emmanuel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack