Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Arvin

228 A.D.2d 658, 644 N.Y.2d 972, 644 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7438
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[659]*659To obtain summary judgment, the movant 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). Here, the defendants made no such showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The defendants are not aggrieved by the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (see, CPLR 5511). In any event, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief as academic rather than on the merits. Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Arvin, 228 A.D.2d 658, 644 N.Y.2d 972, 644 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 658 (Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Arvin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leon Petroleum, LLC v. Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C.
122 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)