Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Satimore v. Burger King

Satimore v. Burger King

288 A.D.2d 893, 732 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11291
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2001
StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 893 (Satimore v. Burger King) 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
Satimore v. Burger King, 288 A.D.2d 893, 732 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendants failed to submit evidence in admissible form establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus the motion was properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), regardless of any alleged deficiency in plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Law-ton. JJ.

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

Related

Ayotte v. Gervasio
619 N.E.2d 400 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 893, 732 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satimore-v-burger-king-nyappdiv-2001.