Abbenante v. Larry E. Tyree Co.

228 A.D.2d 529, 644 N.Y.2d 780, 644 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7171
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 529 (Abbenante v. Larry E. Tyree Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abbenante v. Larry E. Tyree Co., 228 A.D.2d 529, 644 N.Y.2d 780, 644 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The plaintiff Michael T. Abbenante allegedly sustained injuries when he tripped over a defective piece of concrete at the North County Complex in Hauppaugue. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted proof in admissible form that it had not performed work at the site at which Abbenante was injured. Thus, the appellant established a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law (see, Kennerly v Campbell Chain Co., 133 AD2d 669, 670; Megginson v Rose, 121 AD2d 608).

Moreover, the plaintiffs’ evidence that the appellant could [530]*530have been involved in construction of the allegedly defective area was insufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact on this issue. The deposition testimony of a representative of a defendant in a prior action arising out of the same incident was based on hearsay and there was no indication that the deponent had personal knowledge of the relevant facts (see, Kennerly v Campbell Chain Co., supra). Finally, we reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the appellant is not entitled to summary judgment until the plaintiffs have had an opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue. The mere hope that they will uncover evidence to support their claim is insufficient to deny the appellant’s summary judgment motion (see, Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550; Kennerly v Campbell Chain Co., supra). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pina v. Merolla
34 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Kershis v. City of New York
303 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Tsviling v. City of New York
275 A.D.2d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Sellars v. Redondo
270 A.D.2d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Klar v. A. J. Pegno Construction Corp
266 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Aversano v. City of New York
265 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Rubin v. Universal Ford, Inc.
250 A.D.2d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Megna v. Newsday, Inc.
245 A.D.2d 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Soto v. City of New York
244 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Bellafiore v. L & K Holding Corp.
244 A.D.2d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Flanagan v. City of New York
243 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Richter v. Herman
240 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Lopez v. H&M Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
236 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Miller v. JWP Forest Electric Corp.
232 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 529, 644 N.Y.2d 780, 644 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbenante-v-larry-e-tyree-co-nyappdiv-1996.