Steinberg v. Abdul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinberg v. Abdul

230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328

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

DecidedAugust 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 633 (Steinberg v. Abdul) 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

Steinberg v. Abdul, 230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeíf, J.), entered July 10, 1995, which granted the motions of defendants-respondents Fisher Development Corp., Michael McCormack and Aidan Martin seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lebedeíf, J., without costs.

We add that the mere hope, expressed by plaintiffs, that evidence sufficient to establish defendants’ assumption of a duty to plaintiffs’ decedent may be obtained during discovery does not fulfill their obligation to demonstrate the likelihood of such disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]) and, thus, is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 AD2d 609, 610).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeíf, J.), entered July 10, 1995, which granted the motions of defendants-respondents Fisher Development Corp., Michael McCormack and Aidan Martin seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lebedeíf, J., without costs.

We add that the mere hope, expressed by plaintiffs, that evidence sufficient to establish defendants’ assumption of a duty to plaintiffs’ decedent may be obtained during discovery does not fulfill their obligation to demonstrate the likelihood of such disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]) and, thus, is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 AD2d 609, 610).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-abdul-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack