Geller v. Spitalnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geller v. Spitalnick

48 A.D.3d 745, 851 N.Y.S.2d 371

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 745 (Geller v. Spitalnick) 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

Geller v. Spitalnick, 48 A.D.3d 745, 851 N.Y.S.2d 371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMaca, J.), entered August 16, 2006, which, upon an order entered August 4, 2006, granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Becker v Julien, Blitz & Schlesinger, 66 AD2d 674 [1978]; Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v Daelen [746]*746Corp. 59 AD2d 375 [1977]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lifson, J.P. Ritter, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMaca, J.), entered August 16, 2006, which, upon an order entered August 4, 2006, granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Becker v Julien, Blitz & Schlesinger, 66 AD2d 674 [1978]; Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v Daelen [746]*746Corp. 59 AD2d 375 [1977]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lifson, J.P. Ritter, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 745, 851 N.Y.S.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geller-v-spitalnick-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack