Sobus v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobus v. Lawrence

251 A.D.2d 1029, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1998·Published

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] entitlement 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

—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] entitlement 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.

Sobus v. Lawrence, 251 A.D.2d 1029, 672 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 1029 (Sobus v. Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related