Kazakias v. Bistricer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kazakias v. Bistricer

180 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1472

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 666 (Kazakias v. Bistricer) 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

Kazakias v. Bistricer, 180 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover unpaid wages and commissions, the defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated January 9, 1990, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $10,692.50.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim for unpaid wages and commissions (see, Labor Law § 191 [1] [c]; § 193). Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the papers submitted by the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). To the extent that the defendants [667]*667disputed the plaintiffs assertions, their contentions were bald and conclusory in nature, and thus insufficient to create material issues of fact for trial. It is well settled that a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald, conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 342; see also, Pizzi v Bradlees Div., 172 AD2d 504; Assing v United Rubber Supply Co., 126 AD2d 590). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover unpaid wages and commissions, the defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated January 9, 1990, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $10,692.50.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim for unpaid wages and commissions (see, Labor Law § 191 [1] [c]; § 193). Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the papers submitted by the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). To the extent that the defendants [667]*667disputed the plaintiffs assertions, their contentions were bald and conclusory in nature, and thus insufficient to create material issues of fact for trial. It is well settled that a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald, conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 342; see also, Pizzi v Bradlees Div., 172 AD2d 504; Assing v United Rubber Supply Co., 126 AD2d 590). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kazakias-v-bistricer-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack