Riina v. Vitelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riina v. Vitelli

260 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 625 (Riina v. Vitelli) 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

Riina v. Vitelli, 260 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 5, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

As the party moving for summary judgment, the burden was on the defendant to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The defendant failed to do so. Therefore, the court properly denied his motion for summary judgment regardless of any inadequacies of the evidence in opposition to the motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Mangano, P. J., H. Miller, Feuerstein, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 5, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

As the party moving for summary judgment, the burden was on the defendant to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The defendant failed to do so. Therefore, the court properly denied his motion for summary judgment regardless of any inadequacies of the evidence in opposition to the motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Mangano, P. J., H. Miller, Feuerstein, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riina-v-vitelli-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack