Greenberg v. Margolin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Margolin

304 A.D.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 474

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 617 (Greenberg v. Margolin) 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

Greenberg v. Margolin, 304 A.D.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 22, 2002, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $11,250.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff made 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 (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, 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 breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 22, 2002, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $11,250.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff made 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 (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 617, 757 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-margolin-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack