Miller v. Gasek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Gasek

248 A.D.2d 1008, 670 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3093

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1008 (Miller v. Gasek) 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

Miller v. Gasek, 248 A.D.2d 1008, 670 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendants that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment and for dismissal of the answer and counterclaims. Contrary to the contention of defendants, plaintiffs established that, under the certificate of incorporation and by-laws of plaintiff St. Margaret’s Corporation of Utica, N. Y. (Corporation), plaintiffs Henry F. Miller, Jr., Virginia H. Lowery and Robert B. Wallace are duly elected members of the Corporation. Plaintiffs also established that the funds of the Corporation are being used in accordance with the purposes of the Corporation. In response, defendants failed to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendants that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment and for dismissal of the answer and counterclaims. Contrary to the contention of defendants, plaintiffs established that, under the certificate of incorporation and by-laws of plaintiff St. Margaret’s Corporation of Utica, N. Y. (Corporation), plaintiffs Henry F. Miller, Jr., Virginia H. Lowery and Robert B. Wallace are duly elected members of the Corporation. Plaintiffs also established that the funds of the Corporation are being used in accordance with the purposes of the Corporation. In response, defendants failed to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1008, 670 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-gasek-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack