Apr. 14, 2026), the Court unanimously affirmed summary judgment dismissing fraud claims brought by a

One of the defendants moved for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar In part, defendant argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that, prior On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of The Court found that defendant established its entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff

Following joinder of issue, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion, and filed its own motion for summary judgment, arguing that the temporary The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment the Lease, the motion court did not err in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on, inter alia , the complaint and sought an order striking BadaNara The motion court struck BadaNara’s answer and entered a default judgment against it, granted those parts of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the causes of action against the guarantor defendants

The borrower “moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her and

well as recover its share of the profits of the sale of the condominium building, and a declaratory judgment The motion court held that with respect to the first cause of action for a declaratory judgment, it was

Plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting partial summary judgment on its breach The motion court held that plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its

Advisers Act of 1940.⁵ Without denying the SEC’s allegations, Defendant agreed to the entry of a final judgment

Casella Construction Corp. v. 322 East 93 rd Street LLC , unanimously affirmed the dismissal, on summary judgment After discovery, 322 Owner moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint and for damages because

Plaintiff sought summary judgment that Defendant was responsible for those sums. The motion court denied the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. the First Department held that the motion court should have granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

, “bankruptcy [was] not a default under the Purchase Agreement, entitling plaintiff to an immediate judgment

Lender moved for summary judgment in September of 2016.  , supreme court granted borrower’s motion for leave to amend and denied lender’s motion for summary judgment