Harte v. Trapani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harte v. Trapani

250 A.D.2d 813, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6069

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 813 (Harte v. Trapani) 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

Harte v. Trapani, 250 A.D.2d 813, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 18, 1997, as denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment on his fourth and fifth counterclaims, which sought, inter alia, a hearing to determine use and occupancy payments due to him.

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

The defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating his right to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212). Additionally, the defendant’s submissions were insufficient to find that the plaintiffs’ affirmative defenses were meritless (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The defendant’s failure to sufficiently demonstrate his right to summary judgment requires a denial of the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 18, 1997, as denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment on his fourth and fifth counterclaims, which sought, inter alia, a hearing to determine use and occupancy payments due to him.

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

The defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating his right to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212). Additionally, the defendant’s submissions were insufficient to find that the plaintiffs’ affirmative defenses were meritless (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The defendant’s failure to sufficiently demonstrate his right to summary judgment requires a denial of the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 813, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harte-v-trapani-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack