In re the Estate of Bebirian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Bebirian

241 A.D.2d 549, 663 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 549 (In re the Estate of Bebirian) 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

In re the Estate of Bebirian, 241 A.D.2d 549, 663 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for an accounting, Nabil N. Ghaly and Mimi B. Ghaly appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated December 6, 1996, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first and second cross petitions insofar as asserted by Karouzin Mardiros.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

It is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Here, as triable issues of fact exist, summary judgment was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for an accounting, Nabil N. Ghaly and Mimi B. Ghaly appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated December 6, 1996, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first and second cross petitions insofar as asserted by Karouzin Mardiros.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

It is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Here, as triable issues of fact exist, summary judgment was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 549, 663 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-bebirian-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack