Mychajluk v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mychajluk v. Sanchez

282 A.D.2d 509, 722 N.Y.S.2d 755, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 509 (Mychajluk v. Sanchez) 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

Mychajluk v. Sanchez, 282 A.D.2d 509, 722 N.Y.S.2d 755, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated February 18, 2000, as denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on her first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment since she did not sustain her burden of proving her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The conflicting allegations contained in the affidavits that she submitted in support of the motion faded to eliminate all material issues of fact from the case (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated February 18, 2000, as denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on her first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment since she did not sustain her burden of proving her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The conflicting allegations contained in the affidavits that she submitted in support of the motion faded to eliminate all material issues of fact from the case (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 509, 722 N.Y.S.2d 755, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mychajluk-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack