Municipal Testing Laboratory, Inc. v. Brom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Municipal Testing Laboratory, Inc. v. Brom

38 A.D.3d 862, 833 N.Y.S.2d 562

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 862 (Municipal Testing Laboratory, Inc. v. Brom) 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

Municipal Testing Laboratory, Inc. v. Brom, 38 A.D.3d 862, 833 N.Y.S.2d 562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated February 7, 2006, which denied its motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the defendants submitted only an unsworn statement. An unsworn statement is not competent evidence capable of raising a triable issue of fact (see Mazzola v City of New York, 32 AD3d 906 [2006] ; Orelli v Showbiz Pizza Time, 302 AD2d 440, 441 [2003]; Ritts v Teslenko, 276 AD2d 768, 769 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Goldstein and McCarthy, 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 fraud and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated February 7, 2006, which denied its motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the defendants submitted only an unsworn statement. An unsworn statement is not competent evidence capable of raising a triable issue of fact (see Mazzola v City of New York, 32 AD3d 906 [2006] ; Orelli v Showbiz Pizza Time, 302 AD2d 440, 441 [2003]; Ritts v Teslenko, 276 AD2d 768, 769 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Goldstein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 862, 833 N.Y.S.2d 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/municipal-testing-laboratory-inc-v-brom-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack