Simmons v. Pantoja
This text of 25 A.D.3d 777 (Simmons v. Pantoja) 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.
Opinion
an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 21, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 A.D.3d 777, 807 N.Y.S.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-pantoja-nyappdiv-2006.