Foreman v. Gullo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foreman v. Gullo

120 A.D.2d 915, 502 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56999

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

DecidedMay 29, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 915 (Foreman v. Gullo) 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

Foreman v. Gullo, 120 A.D.2d 915, 502 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Kane, J.

Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Hughes, J.), entered April 4, 1985 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim in defendant Doris Brennan Gullo’s answer, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

After adjourning the motion once in order to allow defendant Doris Brennan Gullo (hereinafter defendant) additional time to respond to plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, Special Term granted plaintiff’s application and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim. A review of the record reveals that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of relevant issues of fact (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 278, at 333-335). Accordingly, Special Term properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion. We find no merit in defendant’s assertion that she should have been granted another adjournment.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Kane, J.

Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Hughes, J.), entered April 4, 1985 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim in defendant Doris Brennan Gullo’s answer, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

After adjourning the motion once in order to allow defendant Doris Brennan Gullo (hereinafter defendant) additional time to respond to plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, Special Term granted plaintiff’s application and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim. A review of the record reveals that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of relevant issues of fact (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 278, at 333-335). Accordingly, Special Term properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion. We find no merit in defendant’s assertion that she should have been granted another adjournment.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 915, 502 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foreman-v-gullo-nyappdiv-1986.