Walker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. State

291 A.D.2d 894, 737 N.Y.S.2d 570

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

DocketClaim No. 90072

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 894 (Walker v. State) 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

Walker v. State, 291 A.D.2d 894, 737 N.Y.S.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Midey, Jr., J.), entered October 3, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs..

Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based solely upon alleged deficiencies in claimant’s proof and thus failed to establish its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Hicks v City of Buffalo, 281 AD2d 922; see also, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Present— Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Midey, Jr., J.), entered October 3, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs..

Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based solely upon alleged deficiencies in claimant’s proof and thus failed to establish its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Hicks v City of Buffalo, 281 AD2d 922; see also, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Present— Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 894, 737 N.Y.S.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack