Glover v. Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glover v. Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc.

210 A.D.2d 377, 620 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12941

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 377 (Glover v. Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc.) 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

Glover v. Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 377, 620 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, inter alia, to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of one half the fee title in certain property, the defendant Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated November 4, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that she was entitled to summary judgment. The hearsay affirmation of the appellant’s counsel which was submitted in opposition to the motion, was insufficient to defeat it (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 559, 563).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, inter alia, to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of one half the fee title in certain property, the defendant Sunnyside Referral Services, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated November 4, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that she was entitled to summary judgment. The hearsay affirmation of the appellant’s counsel which was submitted in opposition to the motion, was insufficient to defeat it (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 559, 563).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 377, 620 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-sunnyside-referral-services-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack