Indig v. Finkelstein
| Citation | 244 N.E.2d 61,23 N.Y.2d 728,296 N.Y.S.2d 370 |
| Parties | , 244 N.E.2d 61 Mickey INDIG et al., Appellants, v. Abel FINKELSTEIN et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1968 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Moses H. Hoenig, New York City, for appellants.
Donald L. Kuba, New York City, for respondents.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is supported by affidavits, containing evidentiary facts, showing that the verbal altercation in which the alleged slanders were uttered did not take place in the presence of others. It was then mandatory upon plaintiffs to submit evidentiary facts or materials, by affidavit or otherwise, rebutting the prima facie showing of no publication and demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of ultimate fact (CPLR 3212, subd. (b); Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N.Y.2d 56, 63, 194 N.Y.S.2d 509, 515, 163 N.E.2d 333, 337; Steingart Assoc. v. Sandler, 28 A.D.2d 801, 802--803, 280 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1014, 1015, 1016; Green v. Irwin, 28 A.D.2d 971, 283 N.Y.S.2d 455). The burden upon a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not met merely by a repetition or incorporation by reference of the allegations contained in pleadings or bills of particulars, verified or unverified (Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Prods. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519 *, 275 N.Y.S.2d 188; Twigg v. Twigg, 117 Misc. 154, 191 N.Y.S. 781, affd. 202 App.Div. 729, 193 N.Y.S. 956; Greenberg v. Ughetto, 17 Misc.2d 46, 184 N.Y.S.2d 915; cf. O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank, 239 N.Y. 386, 395, 146 N.E. 636, 638, 39 A.L.R. 747; see 1 Bender's New York Practice, § 10.20, par. 9, pp. 684--686, and supp. par. 14, pp. 265--268; Carmody, New York Practice (7th ed.), § 467; 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 39.29, p. 477; 3 Wait's New York Practice Simplified (4th ed.), pp. 618--620).
An opposing affidavit by one plaintiff adopted by the other plaintiff, referred to persons named in their bills of particulars as witnesses to the alleged verbal altercation, who would be called to testify at the trial. It did not set forth how it was known what their testimony would be, or give the content of the anticipated trial testimony of the witnesses. Nor were any evidentiary facts averred showing precisely where the named persons were during such altercation or that they heard the conversations, or any circumstances, conclusions in the complaint aside, indicating that it was likely that they had heard such conversations. Hence, no triable issue of ultimate fact was raised.
The order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brody v. Leamy
...3212.05). Mere repetition of allegations contained in the pleadings, as plaintiff has done, is insufficient (Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 244 N.E.2d 61). Plaintiff has failed in sustaining his burden of proof and thus falls squarely within the rationale of Paul v. ......
-
Burgos v. 205 E.D. Food Corp., Index No: 15760/06
...and that witnesses' testimony created an issue fact, said affirmation would suffice to defeat summary judgment. Id.; See, Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728 (1968); Graso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813 (1991). When deciding a summary judgment motion the role of the Court is to make determinati......
-
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Sultan
...the date of default because it is verified by counsel who may not have personal knowledge of the facts (see Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 244 N.E.2d 61 [1968] ; Finnegan v. Sheahan, 269 A.D.2d 491, 703 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2d Dept.2000] ; Mullins v. DiLorenzo, 199 A.D.2d 2......
-
Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
..."serious doubts" concerning the truth of the statement that plaintiff was "probably corrupt" (compare Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 371, 244 N.E.2d 61, 62; Stillman v. Ford, 22 N.Y.2d 48, 53, 290 N.Y.S.2d 893, 896, 238 N.E.2d 304, 306; Shapiro v. Health Ins. Pl......