Plaza Investments v. Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plaza Investments v. Kim

208 A.D.2d 704, 617 N.Y.S.2d 496

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 704 (Plaza Investments v. Kim) 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

Plaza Investments v. Kim, 208 A.D.2d 704, 617 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a foreclosure action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 10, 1993, as denied the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). In any event, the plaintiff’s motion was made before any discovery was conducted, and many of the essential issues of fact in this case are solely within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, summary judgment is not warranted (see, Lewis v Agency Rent-A-Car, 168 AD2d 435).

We find no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a foreclosure action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 10, 1993, as denied the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). In any event, the plaintiff’s motion was made before any discovery was conducted, and many of the essential issues of fact in this case are solely within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, summary judgment is not warranted (see, Lewis v Agency Rent-A-Car, 168 AD2d 435).

We find no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 704, 617 N.Y.S.2d 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaza-investments-v-kim-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack