Shaevitz v. Alkon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaevitz v. Alkon

81 A.D.2d 861, 438 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546

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

DecidedMay 11, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 861 (Shaevitz v. Alkon) 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

Shaevitz v. Alkon, 81 A.D.2d 861, 438 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, defendant Stim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 11, 1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Special Term properly noted that the affirmation of plaintiffs’ counsel in opposition to the motion was of no probative value. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must establish the existence of genuine issues of fact by setting forth evidentiary facts (see Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223). This plaintiffs have failed to do. The mere fact that defendant Stim acted as the incorporator for a corporation which it is alleged was used as a vehicle for a fraudulent conveyance is insufficient to create an issue which would warrant denial of the motion. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, defendant Stim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 11, 1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Special Term properly noted that the affirmation of plaintiffs’ counsel in opposition to the motion was of no probative value. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must establish the existence of genuine issues of fact by setting forth evidentiary facts (see Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223). This plaintiffs have failed to do. The mere fact that defendant Stim acted as the incorporator for a corporation which it is alleged was used as a vehicle for a fraudulent conveyance is insufficient to create an issue which would warrant denial of the motion. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 861, 438 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaevitz-v-alkon-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack