From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bratt v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 21, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment is required to make out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. The failure to make such a showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Fox v. Wyeth Labs., 129 A.D.2d 611).

In the instant case, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they fully complied with General Business Law § 703 which is a prerequisite to imposing liability on the defendant in that they failed to show that they gave notice to the defendant in accordance with the statute. Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to produce the bank statement containing the purported billing error. It is therefore impossible on this record to verify that a billing error did indeed occur. As a consequence, material issues of fact remain, and summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bratt v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Bratt v. Bank of New York

Case Details

Full title:IRA M. BRATT et al., Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 21, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Schiller v. Grafton

We agree. The proponent on a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement as a…

Bratt v. Bank of New York

Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant did in fact lose a check for the sum of $151.34 which Mr.…