Legal Opinion
Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 23, 1983PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1026OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Arnold L. Fein (87 AD2d 447), to which we but add two comments.
First, that defendants had not completed discovery did not interdict the grant of summary judgment (Griffin v Cortland Mem. Hosp., 85 AD2d 837, mot for lv to app den 56 NY2d 507). In particular, defendants, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, failed to tender an affidavit or affidavits averring the existence, in admissible form, of proof which would present a triable issue of fact or, if…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Manufacturers, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Egleston v. KalamaridesNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- M & S Mercury Air Conditioning Corp. v. RodolitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- M & S Mercury Air Conditioning Corp. v. RodolitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Chemical Bank v. SeplerNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Fehr Bros. v. ScheinmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Frierson v. Concourse Plaza AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- European American Bank v. LofreseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Lowrey v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.