D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio

306 A.D.2d 431, 762 N.Y.S.2d 256

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 431 (D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio) 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

D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 306 A.D.2d 431, 762 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Vincent D’Onofrio appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated June 6, 2002, as denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him individually and as executor of the estate of John D’Onofrio, or in the alternative, for leave to amend his answer.

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

The appellant failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement, individually or as executor of the estate of John D’Onofrio, to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment.

[432]*432The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, 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 defendant Vincent D’Onofrio appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated June 6, 2002, as denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him individually and as executor of the estate of John D’Onofrio, or in the alternative, for leave to amend his answer.

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

The appellant failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement, individually or as executor of the estate of John D’Onofrio, to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment.

[432]*432The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 431, 762 N.Y.S.2d 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donofrio-v-donofrio-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack