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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

249 A.D.2d 348 (Bamonte v. Yonkers Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related