Opinion
2003-00472, 2003-00473
Argued May 15, 2003.
July 14, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered January 3, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants Harvey Peck, Harry Boltin, Lewis M. Bobroff, Ramapo Radiology, P.C., Suffern Radiology, P.C., Orange Radiology, P.C., East Westchester Radiology, P.C., Andrew Rosenthal, Andrew Rosenthal Alaska Trust, Harvey M. Peck Alaska Trust, Harry N. Boltin Alaska Trust, Melvin Sevach, Andrew Schecter, Marvin Weingarten, Robert Tash, Denise Leslie, M.R.I. Diagnostics of Rockland, Inc., M.R.I. Diagnostics of Orange, Inc., and M.R.I. Diagnostics of Westchester, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action insofar as asserted against them, and (2) an order of the same court also entered January 3, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Leo Greco for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action insofar as asserted against him.
Hogan and Hartson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lyndon M. Tretter of counsel), for appellants.
Ross Gess, P.C., Spring Valley, N.Y. (Donald J. Ross of counsel) and Raymond T. Mundy for respondent Leo J. Greco (one brief filed).
Paul Savad, Nanuet, N.Y. (Susan Cooper of counsel), for respondents Harvey Peck, Harry Boltin, Lewis M. Bobroff, Ramapo Radiology, P.C., Suffern Radiology, P.C., Orange Radiology, P.C., East Westchester Radiology, P.C., Andrew Rosenthal, Andrew Rosenthal Alaska Trust, Harvey M. Peck Alaska Trust, Harry N. Boltin Alaska Trust, Melvin Sevach, Andrew Schecter, Marvin Weingarten, Robert Tash, Denise Leslie, M.R.I. Diagnostics of Rockland, Inc., M.R.I. Diagnostics of Orange, Inc., and M.R.I. Diagnostics of Westchester, Inc.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The respondents demonstrated the absence of any material issue of fact with respect to the appellants' fifth cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the motions were sufficient to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.