Narain v. Vilardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Narain v. Vilardo

34 A.D.3d 1336, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1336 (Narain v. Vilardo) 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

Narain v. Vilardo, 34 A.D.3d 1336, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Fatrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 7, 2005. The order granted the motion of defendant Professional Communications Messaging Servicing, Inc. and the cross motion of defendants Michael L. Vilardo, M.D. and Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal insofar as it concerns defendant Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed (see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]) and the order is affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ., Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Fatrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 7, 2005. The order granted the motion of defendant Professional Communications Messaging Servicing, Inc. and the cross motion of defendants Michael L. Vilardo, M.D. and Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal insofar as it concerns defendant Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed (see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]) and the order is affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ., Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1336, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/narain-v-vilardo-nyappdiv-2006.