Malik v. Dockery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malik v. Dockery

295 A.D.2d 407, 743 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 407 (Malik v. Dockery) 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

Malik v. Dockery, 295 A.D.2d 407, 743 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a [408]*408mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated August 15, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of the defendant James Dockery for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of the defendant James Dockery for summary judgment. The defendant Dockery established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiffs evidence in opposition was insufficient to defeat the motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a [408]*408mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated August 15, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of the defendant James Dockery for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of the defendant James Dockery for summary judgment. The defendant Dockery established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiffs evidence in opposition was insufficient to defeat the motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 407, 743 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malik-v-dockery-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack