From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

North v. Gibson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1996
226 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).


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

The defendant, as the proponent of the summary judgment motion, failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He did not produce any evidence to support his contentions that the plaintiff's action is barred by the Statute of Limitations and that there was an effective release and discharge ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404). Moreover, the defendant did not produce any evidence demonstrating that he is entitled to summary judgment on his counterclaim. Thus, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Greenberg v. Manlon Realty, 43 A.D.2d 968, 969).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

North v. Gibson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1996
226 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

North v. Gibson

Case Details

Full title:NEIL NORTH, Respondent, v. CHARLES A. GIBSON, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

Reid v. 320 E. 81st Street Corporation

The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as he did…