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

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 732 (Hamilton v. Seigel) 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

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

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]*733The 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]*733The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 732, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-seigel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack