Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 599, 639 N.Y.2d 740, 639 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2187

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1996·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly relied upon the affirmation of the moving defendant’s attorney in granting the motion. The affirmation of the attorney was based upon his personal knowledge of the facts and was supported by documentary evidence. It was thus sufficient to support the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; Cerulean Land Developers Corp. v Colon Dev. Corp., 144 AD2d 615; Russo Realty Corp. v Wilbert, 98 AD2d 745). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly relied upon the affirmation of the moving defendant’s attorney in granting the motion. The affirmation of the attorney was based upon his personal knowledge of the facts and was supported by documentary evidence. It was thus sufficient to support the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; Cerulean Land Developers Corp. v Colon Dev. Corp., 144 AD2d 615; Russo Realty Corp. v Wilbert, 98 AD2d 745). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 599, 639 N.Y.2d 740, 639 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

225 A.D.2d 599 (Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related