Fitzgerald v. Rivers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Rivers

17 A.D.3d 312, 791 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 312 (Fitzgerald v. Rivers) 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

Fitzgerald v. Rivers, 17 A.D.3d 312, 791 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Mc-Guirk, J.), dated. April 5, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the defendants raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Triad Distribs. v Conde, 56 AD2d 648, 649 [1977]; see also Call v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 5 AD3d 521, 525-526 [2004]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Mc-Guirk, J.), dated. April 5, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the defendants raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Triad Distribs. v Conde, 56 AD2d 648, 649 [1977]; see also Call v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 5 AD3d 521, 525-526 [2004]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 312, 791 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-rivers-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack