Law Offices of Valery Milgrom, P. C. v. Rigma America Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Law Offices of Valery Milgrom, P. C. v. Rigma America Corp.

276 A.D.2d 531, 714 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10122

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 531 (Law Offices of Valery Milgrom, P. C. v. Rigma America Corp.) 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

Law Offices of Valery Milgrom, P. C. v. Rigma America Corp., 276 A.D.2d 531, 714 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 7, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[532]*532Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, 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 an employment contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 7, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[532]*532Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 531, 714 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-offices-of-valery-milgrom-p-c-v-rigma-america-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack