Simpson v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. King

48 A.D.3d 788, 851 N.Y.S.2d 357

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 788 (Simpson v. King) 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

Simpson v. King, 48 A.D.3d 788, 851 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated December 5, 2006, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Randall S. King which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Randall S. King which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is denied.

The defendant Randall S. King failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). King’s submission on his motion consisted of his counsel’s affirmation, which, along with its attachments, was insufficient to make the requisite showing (see Stahl v Stralberg, 287 AD2d 613, 614 [2001]). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been denied.

King’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated December 5, 2006, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Randall S. King which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Randall S. King which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is denied.

The defendant Randall S. King failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). King’s submission on his motion consisted of his counsel’s affirmation, which, along with its attachments, was insufficient to make the requisite showing (see Stahl v Stralberg, 287 AD2d 613, 614 [2001]). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been denied.

King’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 788, 851 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-king-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack