Schramm v. Jacobs

277 A.D.2d 991, 716 N.Y.S.2d 342, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648

This text of 277 A.D.2d 991 (Schramm v. Jacobs) 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
Schramm v. Jacobs, 277 A.D.2d 991, 716 N.Y.S.2d 342, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order [992]*992unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Galloway, J.). We add only that plaintiffs’ contention that the submissions of defendant Michael Jacobs, M.D. in support of his motion for summary judgment were conclusory and thus insufficient to satisfy his initial burden is raised for the first time on appeal. That contention therefore is not properly before us (see, Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Wisner, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
202 A.D.2d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Oram v. Capone
206 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 991, 716 N.Y.S.2d 342, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schramm-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-2000.