Ghosio v. Lewandowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ghosio v. Lewandowski

201 A.D.2d 618, 609 N.Y.S.2d 833

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1994·Published

Opinion

In consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover a brokerage commission on the sale of real property, the defendants Henry Lewandowski and Richard Lipsman appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated June 3, 1992, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as asserted against them and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to serve an amended complaint.

[619]*619Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To obtain summary judgment the movant must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here, we find that the appellants did not make such a showing. We further find that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Nissenbaum v Ferazzoli, 171 AD2d 654, 655).

We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover a brokerage commission on the sale of real property, the defendants Henry Lewandowski and Richard Lipsman appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated June 3, 1992, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as asserted against them and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to serve an amended complaint.

[619]*619Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To obtain summary judgment the movant must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here, we find that the appellants did not make such a showing. We further find that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Nissenbaum v Ferazzoli, 171 AD2d 654, 655).

We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Ghosio v. Lewandowski, 201 A.D.2d 618, 609 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 618 (Ghosio v. Lewandowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related