Rackis v. Adelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rackis v. Adelman

20 A.D.3d 519, 800 N.Y.S.2d 424

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.3d 519 (Rackis v. Adelman) 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

Rackis v. Adelman, 20 A.D.3d 519, 800 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 21, 1994, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Panepinto, J.), dated July 20, 2004, as denied her motion for summary judgment on her claim for child support arrears in the sum of $63,120 for the period from March 31, 1994, to April 22, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on her claim for child support arrears. The motion was made before the defendant had an opportunity to conduct discovery. In any event, the defendant’s affidavit [520]*520submitted in opposition to the motion constituted sufficient proof by a person having knowledge of the facts to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the terms of an oral agreement allegedly entered into by the parties (see CPLR 3212 [b]; DeLeonardis v Brown, 15 AD3d 525 [2005]; Harbor Seafood v Quality Fish Co., 194 AD2d 713 [1993]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 21, 1994, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Panepinto, J.), dated July 20, 2004, as denied her motion for summary judgment on her claim for child support arrears in the sum of $63,120 for the period from March 31, 1994, to April 22, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on her claim for child support arrears. The motion was made before the defendant had an opportunity to conduct discovery. In any event, the defendant’s affidavit [520]*520submitted in opposition to the motion constituted sufficient proof by a person having knowledge of the facts to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the terms of an oral agreement allegedly entered into by the parties (see CPLR 3212 [b]; DeLeonardis v Brown, 15 AD3d 525 [2005]; Harbor Seafood v Quality Fish Co., 194 AD2d 713 [1993]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 519, 800 N.Y.S.2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rackis-v-adelman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack