Schumer v. Burtan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schumer v. Burtan

208 A.D.2d 823, 618 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 823 (Schumer v. Burtan) 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

Schumer v. Burtan, 208 A.D.2d 823, 618 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated February 9, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[824]*824Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants presented prima facie evidence of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to present any evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a material issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated February 9, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[824]*824Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants presented prima facie evidence of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to present any evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a material issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 823, 618 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schumer-v-burtan-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack