Hugelmaier v. Town of Sweden

101 A.D.2d 995
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 1984·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

— Order reversed, without costs, and defendant [996]*996Town of Sweden’s motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in not granting defendant Town of Sweden’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s papers in opposition to defendant’s motion were defective in that they failed to set forth any evidence that defendant had negligently repaired or maintained Redman Road. The conclusory allegation of negligence contained in plaintiff’s attorney’s affidavit, made without personal knowledge of the facts, was without probative value and, hence, insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, e.g., Marine Midland Bank v Hall, 74 AD2d 729). All concur, except Callahan and O’Donnell, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum.

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

Hugelmaier v. Town of Sweden, 101 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

101 A.D.2d 995 (Hugelmaier v. Town of Sweden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marine Buffalo Assocs., L.P. v. HSBC Bank USA
2003 NY Slip Op 51672(U) (New York Supreme Court, Erie County, 2003)
Hugelmaier v. Town of Sweden
130 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Dunster v. City of Rome
129 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)