Rescigno v. Key Bank
This text of 242 A.D.2d 613 (Rescigno v. Key Bank) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 17, 1995, as granted the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment. The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to refute that showing with evidence in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a material issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Scheer v City of New York, 211 AD2d 778; Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729; see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
242 A.D.2d 613, 664 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rescigno-v-key-bank-nyappdiv-1997.