Murray v. City of New York

37 A.D.3d 784, 829 N.Y.S.2d 909
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Murray v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 43 A.D.3d 429

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 2, 2005, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, in effect, to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3).

[785]*785Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. After the City established a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Kochis v Reveo Pharmacy, 9 AD3d 449 [2004]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions raised in connection with their cross motion are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Murray v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 784, 829 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

37 A.D.3d 784 (Murray v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kochis v. Revco Pharmacy
9 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)