Kaufman v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 379, 707 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 379 (Kaufman v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.) 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

Kaufman v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 379, 707 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 3, 1999, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied as academic his motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence in support of their cross motion to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiffs opposition was insufficient because he offered only speculation and mere hope that evidence would be uncovered during discovery which would support his claims (see, Boland v Pinks, 267 AD2d 342; Curtis v Lopez, 266 AD2d 179). The plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was properly denied as academic. Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 3, 1999, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied as academic his motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence in support of their cross motion to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiffs opposition was insufficient because he offered only speculation and mere hope that evidence would be uncovered during discovery which would support his claims (see, Boland v Pinks, 267 AD2d 342; Curtis v Lopez, 266 AD2d 179). The plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was properly denied as academic. Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 379, 707 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-citicorp-mortgage-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack