Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Conn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Conn

33 A.D.3d 900, 822 N.Y.S.2d 467

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 900 (Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Conn) 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

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Conn, 33 A.D.3d 900, 822 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a motor vehicle lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 11, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Rentz v Modell, 262 AD2d 545, 546 [1999]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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 breach of a motor vehicle lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 11, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Rentz v Modell, 262 AD2d 545, 546 [1999]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 900, 822 N.Y.S.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nissan-motor-acceptance-corp-v-conn-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack