Bamonte v. Yonkers Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bamonte v. Yonkers Construction Co.

249 A.D.2d 348, 670 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 348 (Bamonte v. Yonkers Construction 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

Bamonte v. Yonkers Construction Co., 249 A.D.2d 348, 670 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 8, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of its motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact. However, the plaintiffs only submitted an affirmation by counsel who was without personal knowledge of the facts and which contained mere conclusions, expressions of hope, and unsubstantiated allegations, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 8, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of its motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The burden thus shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact. However, the plaintiffs only submitted an affirmation by counsel who was without personal knowledge of the facts and which contained mere conclusions, expressions of hope, and unsubstantiated allegations, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 348, 670 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamonte-v-yonkers-construction-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack