Greenberg v. Wertzberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Wertzberger

224 A.D.2d 580, 639 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1357

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 580 (Greenberg v. Wertzberger) 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. Wertzberger, 224 A.D.2d 580, 639 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to quiet title to real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated March 28, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants S & J Future Realty, Inc., Jacob Deutsch, Chester Plaza, Inc., Louis Leimzeder, Solomon Leimzeder, and Herman Leimzeder for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the court properly granted summary judgment since the moving defendants proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issue of fact existed and the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to quiet title to real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated March 28, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants S & J Future Realty, Inc., Jacob Deutsch, Chester Plaza, Inc., Louis Leimzeder, Solomon Leimzeder, and Herman Leimzeder for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the court properly granted summary judgment since the moving defendants proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issue of fact existed and the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 580, 639 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-wertzberger-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack