Greenfield v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfield v. Harris

187 A.D.2d 485, 590 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 485 (Greenfield v. Harris) 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

Greenfield v. Harris, 187 A.D.2d 485, 590 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from soliciting the plaintiffs’ accounts, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated October 5, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendants Arthur Lewis Agency, Ltd. and Arthur Lewis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the moving papers of the respondents established that the plaintiffs do not have a viable cause of action against them, and the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which they rest their claim. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from soliciting the plaintiffs’ accounts, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated October 5, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendants Arthur Lewis Agency, Ltd. and Arthur Lewis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the moving papers of the respondents established that the plaintiffs do not have a viable cause of action against them, and the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which they rest their claim. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 485, 590 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-harris-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack