Legal Opinion
Columbo v. Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 19, 2002PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*328The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst (hereinafter the Village) which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Smuckler v Mercy Coll., 244 AD2d 329; Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764). Where the moving party offers evidentiary material, the court is required to determine whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Steiner v Lazzaro &…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Leon v. MartinezNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Doria v. MasucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Roth v. GoldmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Steiner v. Lazzaro & Gregory, P. C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Smuckler v. Mercy CollegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fishberger v. VossAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Manfro v. McGivneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Rochdale Village, Inc. v. ZimmermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Simos v. Vic-Armen Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Ahava Dairy Products Corp. v. Trident Leasing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.