Daimon v. Fridman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daimon v. Fridman

286 A.D.2d 701, 730 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8536

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 701 (Daimon v. Fridman) 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

Daimon v. Fridman, 286 A.D.2d 701, 730 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 25, 2000, as denied her motion for summary judgment.

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

As the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, the appellant had the burden of establishing her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the appellant failed to make such a showing, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; cf., Rawcliffe v Aguayo, 108 Misc 2d 1027). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 25, 2000, as denied her motion for summary judgment.

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

As the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, the appellant had the burden of establishing her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the appellant failed to make such a showing, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; cf., Rawcliffe v Aguayo, 108 Misc 2d 1027). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 701, 730 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daimon-v-fridman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack