Amona v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amona v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

17 A.D.3d 386, 792 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3746

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 386 (Amona v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.) 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

Amona v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 386, 792 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for property damage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for property damage which resulted from a boiler explosion at the subject premises. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof which established that it was not responsible for the explosion (see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065 [1979]).

In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert was speculative and conclusory, and was insufficient to raise a triable of fact (see Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444 [1997]). Therefore, the grant of summary judgment was proper.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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