Schwartz v. Miltz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Miltz

37 A.D.3d 816, 829 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 816 (Schwartz v. Miltz) 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

Schwartz v. Miltz, 37 A.D.3d 816, 829 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated October 6, 2005, as denied that branch of her cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

That branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied since the defendant did not make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated October 6, 2005, as denied that branch of her cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

That branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied since the defendant did not make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 816, 829 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-miltz-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack