Sobus v. Lawrence
This text of 251 A.D.2d 1029 (Sobus v. Lawrence) 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
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Henry, Jr., J.). We add only that, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, “defendants may establish [1030]*1030entitlement to summary judgment by submitting plaintiffs deposition testimony and the medical reports and records of plaintiff that were supplied by plaintiffs counsel” (Nigro v Penree, 238 AD2d 908). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
251 A.D.2d 1029, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobus-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1998.