1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 123 A.D.2d
  5. 123 A.D.2d 622 (1986)
 

SWEET PEA FRUIT EXCH., INC. v. HERRILL BOWLING CORP.

123 A.D.2d 622 (1986)

Sweet Pea Fruit Exchange, Inc., Appellant, v. Herrill Bowling Corp. et al., Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

October 6, 1986

Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In opposing a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must lay bare its proof and prove by evidence in admissible form that there exists a genuine issue of fact requiring a trial (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Sweet Pea has not even directly addressed the motions for summary judgment, but, instead, cross-moved for partial summary judgment and for new...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases