McCue v. Battaglia
| Decision Date | 09 January 1995 |
| Citation | 621 N.Y.S.2d 103,211 A.D.2d 625 |
| Parties | Gale McCUE, etc., Respondent, v. Frank BATTAGLIA, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Abraham Morris, Yonkers, for appellant.
Voute Lohrfink, Magro & Collins, White Plains (Ralph F. Schoene, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and LAWRENCE, RITTER and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendant Frank Battaglia appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which, inter alia, denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff's cross motion to compel compliance with her discovery demands.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, GTF Mktg. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 N.Y.2d 965, 498 N.Y.S.2d 786, 489 N.E.2d 755; Alter v. Advance Alarm Co., 131 A.D.2d 406, 516 N.Y.S.2d 75; Colonresto v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 128 A.D.2d 825, 513 N.Y.S.2d 748). Absent such a showing, the motion is to be denied regardless of the insufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Empbanque Capital Corp. v. Griffith, 198 A.D.2d 259, 603 N.Y.S.2d 522; Shamberg Marwell Cherneff & Hocherman v. Laufer, 193 A.D.2d 664, 597 N.Y.S.2d 471; Law Firm of Ira H. Leibowitz, Lasky & Peterson v. Sikowitz, 129 A.D.2d 774, 514 N.Y.S.2d 768). The unsubstantiated assertions and general conclusions set forth in the appellant's moving papers denying the allegations found in the complaint are insufficient to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
CPLR article 31 authorized the service of each of the plaintiff's disclosure demands at issue on this appeal, and the appellant has failed to articulate any legal basis to preclude discovery. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a protective order and in granting the plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cauley v. Long Island R. Co.
...in striking the defendant's answer and resolving all issues of liability in favor of the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3126; McCue v. Battaglia, 211 A.D.2d 625, 621 N.Y.S.2d 103; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 567 N.Y.S.2d 79; Fucci v. Fucci, 166 A.D.2d 551, 560 N.Y.S.2d 833; Chase Manhattan Bank......
-
Cocozzelli, Lerner, Meunkle & Grossman, LLP v. Basile
...the remaining defendants, the plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, e.g., McCue v. Battaglia, 211 A.D.2d 625, 621 N.Y.S.2d 103; Law Firm of Ira H. Leibowitz, Lasky & Peterson v. Sikowitz, 129 A.D.2d 774, 514 N.Y.S.2d The plaintiff alleges that in......
-
Jacobson v. County of Westchester
...deny those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to direct their appearances at subsequent depositions (see, McCue v. Battaglia, 211 A.D.2d 625, 621 N.Y.S.2d 103). However, insofar as the plaintiff's attorney apparently advised the defendants' attorney prior to the date of the depos......