Hanley v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanley v. Swift

15 A.D.3d 621, 789 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 621 (Hanley v. Swift) 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

Hanley v. Swift, 15 A.D.3d 621, 789 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants Johanna L. Swift, Reynald Swift, and VT Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J), dated December 2, 2003, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

[622]*622Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Summary judgment may be granted only when no triable issue of fact exists (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, since they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to such relief. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants Johanna L. Swift, Reynald Swift, and VT Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J), dated December 2, 2003, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

[622]*622Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Summary judgment may be granted only when no triable issue of fact exists (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, since they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to such relief. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 621, 789 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanley-v-swift-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack