Deerbrook Insurance v. Brazier Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deerbrook Insurance v. Brazier Agency

289 A.D.2d 523, 735 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13065

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 523 (Deerbrook Insurance v. Brazier Agency) 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

Deerbrook Insurance v. Brazier Agency, 289 A.D.2d 523, 735 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants proximately caused its loss (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated June 25, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants proximately caused its loss (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 523, 735 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deerbrook-insurance-v-brazier-agency-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack