Moncrief v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moncrief v. Rosenthal

49 A.D.3d 511, 851 N.Y.2d 892

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 511 (Moncrief v. Rosenthal) 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

Moncrief v. Rosenthal, 49 A.D.3d 511, 851 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Appell v Mandel, 296 AD2d 514 [2002]; Singh v Persaud, 269 AD2d 381, 382 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Appell v Mandel, 296 AD2d 514 [2002]; Singh v Persaud, 269 AD2d 381, 382 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 511, 851 N.Y.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moncrief-v-rosenthal-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack