Abreu v. City of New York

40 A.D.3d 666, 833 N.Y.S.2d 915
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Abreu v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 14 A.D.3d 469

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated September 11, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (id. at 324; see Restrepo v Rockland Corp., 38 AD3d 742 [1972]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Abreu v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 666, 833 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

40 A.D.3d 666 (Abreu v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Restrepo v. Rockland Corp.
38 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)