Grosof v. Goforth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grosof v. Goforth

11 A.D.3d 429, 782 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 429 (Grosof v. Goforth) 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

Grosof v. Goforth, 11 A.D.3d 429, 782 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which denied their motion, among other things, to compel discovery, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212). The defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and unsupported assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Hoffman v Unterberg, 9 AD3d 389 [2004]; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d 499, 500-501 [2001]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which denied their motion, among other things, to compel discovery, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212). The defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and unsupported assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Hoffman v Unterberg, 9 AD3d 389 [2004]; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d 499, 500-501 [2001]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 429, 782 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grosof-v-goforth-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack