Pallas v. Guntupalli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pallas v. Guntupalli

195 A.D.2d 1002, 602 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 1002 (Pallas v. Guntupalli) 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

Pallas v. Guntupalli, 195 A.D.2d 1002, 602 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the physician’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff in response raised a triable issue of fact (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the physician’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff in response raised a triable issue of fact (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 1002, 602 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pallas-v-guntupalli-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack