From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hersh v. Busman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1981
80 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

March 9, 1981


Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 3, 1980, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the ground it is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. "It is incumbent upon a [plaintiff] who opposes a motion for summary judgment to assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs, in order to show that the matters set up in his [complaint] are real and are capable of being established upon a trial" (Di Sabato v Soffes, 9 A.D.2d 297, 301). "[O]nly the existence of a bona fide issue raised by evidentiary facts and not one based on conclusory or irrelevant allegations will suffice to defeat summary judgment" (Ratuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231). Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidentiary facts in his opposition papers to raise a bona fide issue of estoppel or partial payment tolling the Statute of Limitations. Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hersh v. Busman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1981
80 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Hersh v. Busman

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN B. HERSH, Appellant, v. JOSEPH BUSMAN et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1981

Citations

80 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Pate v. Pate

As the plaintiff is asserting an exception to the statute of limitations, he had the burden of establishing…

McDonald v. City of New York

The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Treminio v Argueta, 49 AD3d…