Zilm v. Koch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zilm v. Koch

211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 320

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 675 (Zilm v. Koch) 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

Zilm v. Koch, 211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal mal[676]*676practice, the defendant Howard Grafstein appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated June 7, 1993, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

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

The defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as he failed to establish his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). We agree with the Supreme Court that the pleadings present credibility issues which should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 262). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, 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 legal mal[676]*676practice, the defendant Howard Grafstein appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated June 7, 1993, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

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

The defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as he failed to establish his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). We agree with the Supreme Court that the pleadings present credibility issues which should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 262). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 675, 622 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zilm-v-koch-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack