Rosen v. Sweed

98 A.D.3d 1017, 950 N.Y.S.2d 587

This text of 98 A.D.3d 1017 (Rosen v. Sweed) 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
Rosen v. Sweed, 98 A.D.3d 1017, 950 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[1018]*1018In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated November 17, 2010, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Florio and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 A.D.3d 1017, 950 N.Y.S.2d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-sweed-nyappdiv-2012.