Lynch v. Bridge To Life, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynch v. Bridge To Life, Inc.

30 A.D.3d 566, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedJune 20, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 566 (Lynch v. Bridge To Life, 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

Lynch v. Bridge To Life, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 566, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unpaid wages, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered August 12, 2005, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs Joann Lynch, Carol Reichert, and Kathleen Reichert for summary judgment and, [567]*567inter alia, is in favor of those plaintiffs and against it in the principal sums of $76,312.41, $12,916.69, and $28,875.08, respectively.

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

The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Miller, J.E, Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, 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 unpaid wages, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered August 12, 2005, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs Joann Lynch, Carol Reichert, and Kathleen Reichert for summary judgment and, [567]*567inter alia, is in favor of those plaintiffs and against it in the principal sums of $76,312.41, $12,916.69, and $28,875.08, respectively.

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

The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Miller, J.E, Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 566, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-bridge-to-life-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack