Hamilton v. Seigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamilton v. Seigel

250 A.D.2d 732, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 18, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for an alleged conspiracy to defraud, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated June 20, 1997, which, upon an order of the same court entered June 4, 1997, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying his cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment {see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[733] The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint after he made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiff either failed to articulate causes of action at all or failed to come forward with evidence establishing essential elements of the causes of action (see, CPLR 3212; Ferber v Sterndent Corp., 51 NY2d 782). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, 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 an alleged conspiracy to defraud, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated June 20, 1997, which, upon an order of the same court entered June 4, 1997, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying his cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment {see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[733] The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint after he made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiff either failed to articulate causes of action at all or failed to come forward with evidence establishing essential elements of the causes of action (see, CPLR 3212; Ferber v Sterndent Corp., 51 NY2d 782). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Hamilton v. Seigel, 250 A.D.2d 732, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 732 (Hamilton v. Seigel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related