Miller v. Kliger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Kliger

15 A.D.3d 457, 789 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1634

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 457 (Miller v. Kliger) 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. Kliger, 15 A.D.3d 457, 789 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated April 29, 2003, which, among other things, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). However, the plaintiff presented mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations, which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact [458]*458(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 325; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 562). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, 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, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated April 29, 2003, which, among other things, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). However, the plaintiff presented mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations, which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact [458]*458(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 325; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 562). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 457, 789 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-kliger-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack