Snelson v. SGM Catering Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snelson v. SGM Catering Inc.

47 A.D.2d 903, 366 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9316

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 4, 1975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alla, to recover for fraud, defendant Kuchler appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 26, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, motion granted and action severed as to appellant. Appellant’s proof shows that he was in no way involved with the allegedly fraudulent repair scheme. In his opposing affidavit plaintiffs’ attorney explicitly stated that he would not go into "evidentiary matter”. Instead he stated, in conclusory fashion, that there "is some evidence that Mr. Kuchler was somehow involved in this situation.” A motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated by conclusory statements devoid of evidentiary facts showing a bona fide issue requiring a trial (see Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alla, to recover for fraud, defendant Kuchler appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 26, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, motion granted and action severed as to appellant. Appellant’s proof shows that he was in no way involved with the allegedly fraudulent repair scheme. In his opposing affidavit plaintiffs’ attorney explicitly stated that he would not go into "evidentiary matter”. Instead he stated, in conclusory fashion, that there "is some evidence that Mr. Kuchler was somehow involved in this situation.” A motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated by conclusory statements devoid of evidentiary facts showing a bona fide issue requiring a trial (see Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Snelson v. SGM Catering Inc., 47 A.D.2d 903, 366 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

47 A.D.2d 903 (Snelson v. SGM Catering Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related