Bennett v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Robinson

35 A.D.3d 643, 824 N.Y.S.2d 923

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 643 (Bennett v. Robinson) 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

Bennett v. Robinson, 35 A.D.3d 643, 824 N.Y.S.2d 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated January 13, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Lezama v 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 AD3d 560 [2005]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). Ethel Bennett’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment contradicted her deposition testimony and was apparently a feigned attempt to raise an issue of fact (see Gadonniex v Lombardi, 277 AD2d 281, 281-282 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated January 13, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Lezama v 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 AD3d 560 [2005]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). Ethel Bennett’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment contradicted her deposition testimony and was apparently a feigned attempt to raise an issue of fact (see Gadonniex v Lombardi, 277 AD2d 281, 281-282 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 643, 824 N.Y.S.2d 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-robinson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack