Fogel v. Teachers College of Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fogel v. Teachers College of Columbia University

156 A.D.2d 133, 548 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15219

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 133 (Fogel v. Teachers College of Columbia University) 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

Fogel v. Teachers College of Columbia University, 156 A.D.2d 133, 548 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered March 2, 1989, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Each of plaintiff’s causes of action was based upon defendants’ alleged failure to provide an adequate faculty in compliance with the Education Law in order to maintain a doctoral program in communication. Defendants submitted sufficient documentary proof of their compliance with the Education Law. The allegations in the verified complaint and plaintiff’s attorney’s affirmation fail to refute defendants’ proof so as to raise any triable issue. (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered March 2, 1989, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Each of plaintiff’s causes of action was based upon defendants’ alleged failure to provide an adequate faculty in compliance with the Education Law in order to maintain a doctoral program in communication. Defendants submitted sufficient documentary proof of their compliance with the Education Law. The allegations in the verified complaint and plaintiff’s attorney’s affirmation fail to refute defendants’ proof so as to raise any triable issue. (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 133, 548 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogel-v-teachers-college-of-columbia-university-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack