MRI Enterprises, Inc. v. Brooklyn Radiology, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MRI Enterprises, Inc. v. Brooklyn Radiology, P. C.

245 A.D.2d 494, 666 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13238

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 494 (MRI Enterprises, Inc. v. Brooklyn Radiology, P. C.) 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

MRI Enterprises, Inc. v. Brooklyn Radiology, P. C., 245 A.D.2d 494, 666 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated October 28, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

[495]*495Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed.

The documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on both its complaint and the defendants’ counterclaim. The defendants’ unsubstantiated conclusory assertions were insufficient to refute the plaintiffs documentary evidence or to otherwise create a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the proceeds of a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated October 28, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

[495]*495Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed.

The documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on both its complaint and the defendants’ counterclaim. The defendants’ unsubstantiated conclusory assertions were insufficient to refute the plaintiffs documentary evidence or to otherwise create a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 494, 666 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mri-enterprises-inc-v-brooklyn-radiology-p-c-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack