Glick v. Erstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glick v. Erstein

216 A.D.2d 523, 628 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7074

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 523 (Glick v. Erstein) 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

Glick v. Erstein, 216 A.D.2d 523, 628 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the [524]*524Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated December 1, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Thomas Byrne is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant Edward Click.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant since he proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues of fact existed, and the papers of the appellant Edward Click in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant Glick’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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