Legal Opinion
Cox v. Kingsboro Medical Group
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 11, 1996PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
"The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case [citations omitted]” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Respondents satisfied that burden by demonstrating that they were served with the complaint after the expiration of the two-year-and-six-month Statute of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Borgia v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Richardson v. OrentreichNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
3Cited by79 opinions
- Allende v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Gomez v. KatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Fleming v. GrahamNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Couch v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Jones v. Surrey Cooperative Apartments, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.