Zeitlan v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeitlan v. Hoffman

199 A.D.2d 499, 608 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1993·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful seizure of a motor vehicle, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered October 17, 1991, as, upon an order of the same court dated September 20, 1991, granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment awarding him compensatory damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the appellants in the principal sum of $17,100.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, in his motion papers, established his entitlement to compensatory damages, and, in response to the motion, the appellants submitted the bare affirmation of an attorney who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the transactions which formed the bases of the plaintiff’s various causes of action. The affirmation is without evidentiary value and thus unavailing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; Romano v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 178 AD2d 467, 470).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful seizure of a motor vehicle, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered October 17, 1991, as, upon an order of the same court dated September 20, 1991, granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment awarding him compensatory damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the appellants in the principal sum of $17,100.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, in his motion papers, established his entitlement to compensatory damages, and, in response to the motion, the appellants submitted the bare affirmation of an attorney who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the transactions which formed the bases of the plaintiff’s various causes of action. The affirmation is without evidentiary value and thus unavailing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; Romano v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 178 AD2d 467, 470).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Zeitlan v. Hoffman, 199 A.D.2d 499, 608 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 499 (Zeitlan v. Hoffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related