Rotella v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rotella v. McLaughlin

295 A.D.2d 993, 743 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 993 (Rotella v. McLaughlin) 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

Rotella v. McLaughlin, 295 A.D.2d 993, 743 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.) entered June 14, 2001, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in this action involving the private sale of a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to fraud or the existence of an express warranty, and thus the burden never shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.) entered June 14, 2001, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in this action involving the private sale of a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to fraud or the existence of an express warranty, and thus the burden never shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 993, 743 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotella-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack