DePodwin v. Fonvil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DePodwin v. Fonvil

38 A.D.3d 827, 833 N.Y.S.2d 394

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 827 (DePodwin v. Fonvil) 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

DePodwin v. Fonvil, 38 A.D.3d 827, 833 N.Y.S.2d 394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover an attorney’s fee, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered August 15, 2005, which, inter alia, upon an order of the same court dated July 28, 2005, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $70,659.37.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to submit evidence in admissible form establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover legal fees which were incurred pursuant to a written agreement between the parties (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Mere conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or speculation may not defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Carleton Studio, Ltd. v MONY Life Ins. Co., 18 AD3d 491, 492 [2005]; Leggio v Gearhart, 294 AD2d 543, 544 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover an attorney’s fee, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered August 15, 2005, which, inter alia, upon an order of the same court dated July 28, 2005, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $70,659.37.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to submit evidence in admissible form establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover legal fees which were incurred pursuant to a written agreement between the parties (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Mere conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or speculation may not defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Carleton Studio, Ltd. v MONY Life Ins. Co., 18 AD3d 491, 492 [2005]; Leggio v Gearhart, 294 AD2d 543, 544 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 827, 833 N.Y.S.2d 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depodwin-v-fonvil-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack