Coronel v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 862 N.E.2d 782 (NY 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Coronel v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 862 N.E.2d 782 (NY 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases · "The defendant acknowledges that, while he was still represented by counsel, the court was entitled to ignore such pro se filings."
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Victor Coronel, Appellant,
v.
the Chase Manhattan Bank, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 16, 2007.
862 N.E.2d 782
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Victor Coronel, appellant pro se., Barry, McTiernan & Moore, New York City (Anthony J. Mc-Nulty of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 74%
Citer courts: Colorado Court of Appeals (1)

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered as unnecessary. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendant bank’s summary judgment motion.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.