Leale v. Ruocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leale v. Ruocco

264 A.D.2d 468, 693 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 468 (Leale v. Ruocco) 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

Leale v. Ruocco, 264 A.D.2d 468, 693 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 19, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise any triable issues of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 19, 1998, which granted the respective motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise any triable issues of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 468, 693 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leale-v-ruocco-nyappdiv-1999.