From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marks v. Radmin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 13, 1994
205 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 13, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not the owner of 1% of the common stock of the defendant BMW (N) Holding Corp.

After the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404). The plaintiff failed to do so. The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendants' motion.

We note, however, that since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, a judgment should be entered granting declaratory relief in favor of the defendant BMW (N) Holding Corp. (see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marks v. Radmin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 13, 1994
205 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Marks v. Radmin

Case Details

Full title:CYNTHIA MARKS, Appellant, v. NANCYE RADMIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 13, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
613 N.Y.S.2d 638

Citing Cases

McGannon v. Board of Trustees

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. We note that since this is, in part, a declaratory…

Halali v. Insurance

Consequently, the court erred in granting the defendant's motion. We also note that had the court properly…