Haggerty v. Law Office of Burns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. Law Office of Burns

244 A.D.2d 458, 665 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 458 (Haggerty v. Law Office of Burns) 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

Haggerty v. Law Office of Burns, 244 A.D.2d 458, 665 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action [459]*459to recover damages for abuse of process, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered January 15, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact which regard to his cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process (see, Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 NY2d 397, 403; Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v Larkin, 129 AD2d 542; Bohm v Holzberg, 47 AD2d 764). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action [459]*459to recover damages for abuse of process, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered January 15, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact which regard to his cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process (see, Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38 NY2d 397, 403; Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v Larkin, 129 AD2d 542; Bohm v Holzberg, 47 AD2d 764). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 458, 665 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggerty-v-law-office-of-burns-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack