Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Kenedics v. Ribolo

Kenedics v. Ribolo

49 A.D.3d 820, 853 N.Y.2d 903
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 2008
StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 820 (Kenedics v. Ribolo) 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
Kenedics v. Ribolo, 49 A.D.3d 820, 853 N.Y.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In support of her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, the defendant Irina Kravis made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact (see id.; Fontecchio v Esposito, 108 AD2d 780 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Fontecchio v. Esposito
108 A.D.2d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 820, 853 N.Y.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenedics-v-ribolo-nyappdiv-2008.