From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russo Realty Corp. v. Wilbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1983
98 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

December 12, 1983


In a real property partition action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (De Luca, J.), dated February 17, 1983, which denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Special Term erred in refusing to consider the affirmation in support of plaintiff's motion which was prepared by plaintiff's attorney who had personal knowledge of the facts, and which was based on documentary evidence (see, e.g., Comptroller of State of N.Y. v Gards Realty Corp., 68 A.D.2d 186; Getlan v. Hofstra Univ., 41 A.D.2d 830, mot for lv to app dsmd 33 N.Y.2d 646). Defendant did not timely oppose the motion. The undisputed facts set forth by plaintiff warrant the directing of judgment in plaintiff's favor as a matter of law. Defendant's counterclaim for plaintiff's share of the costs, expenses, taxes and charges on the property is a proper subject matter for determination by Special Term and is not a defense to the plaintiff's action. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Russo Realty Corp. v. Wilbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1983
98 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Russo Realty Corp. v. Wilbert

Case Details

Full title:RUSSO REALTY CORP., Appellant, v. LOUISE WILBERT, Also Known as LOUISE…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 1983

Citations

98 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Russo Realty Corp. v. Katz

The defendant's first, second, and fourth affirmative defenses and first counterclaim fail to raise any…

Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, Inc.

The affirmation of the attorney was based upon his personal knowledge of the facts and was supported by…