You are here: / / HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,...
,

HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.

The Second Department noted that hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion but, to raise a question fact, hearsay alone is not enough. Dindiyal v Dindiyal, 2017 NY Slip Op 03152, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY,(HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)  

You might also like
POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED.
Public Interest Privilege (Protecting Government Documents from Disclosure) Explained
PUTATIVE FATHER’S REQUEST FOR A DNA PATERNITY TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT.
DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 OR CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE NOTE ITSELF WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON... MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE...