Attard v. FRP Sheet Metal Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Attard v. FRP Sheet Metal Contracting Corp.

9 A.D.3d 341, 778 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9349

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

DecidedJuly 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 341 (Attard v. FRP Sheet Metal Contracting Corp.) 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

Attard v. FRP Sheet Metal Contracting Corp., 9 A.D.3d 341, 778 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated December 19, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted.

In support of their unopposed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs’ demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Velazquez v Denton Limo, Inc., 7 AD3d 787 [2004]; Christian v Audi of Am., 233 AD2d 289 [1996]). Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated December 19, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted.

In support of their unopposed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs’ demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Velazquez v Denton Limo, Inc., 7 AD3d 787 [2004]; Christian v Audi of Am., 233 AD2d 289 [1996]). Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 341, 778 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attard-v-frp-sheet-metal-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack