Greenberg v. Wertzberger
639 N.Y.S.2d 707, 224 A.D.2d 580 N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.1996
View New York Official Reports version
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mendel GREENBERG, et al., Appellants,
v.
Haskel WERTZBERGER, et al., Defendants,
S & J Future Realty, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Feb. 20, 1996.
Mendel GREENBERG, et al., Appellants,
v.
Haskel WERTZBERGER, et al., Defendants,
S & J Future Realty, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Feb. 20, 1996.
Noel W. Hauser and Associates, New York City, for appellants.
Benjamin Ostrer, P.C., Chester, for respondents.
*581 (Cite as: 224 A.D.2d 580, *581, 639 N.Y.S.2d 707)
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the court properly granted summary judgment since the moving defendants proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issue of fact existed and the plaintiffs' papers in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
SULLIVAN, J.P., and SANTUCCI, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.
Copr. (C) West 2006 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1996.
Greenberg v. Wertzberger
224 A.D.2d 580, 639 N.Y.S.2d 707
