Birnbaum v. Constanza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birnbaum v. Constanza

17 A.D.3d 304, 791 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3550

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 4, 2005·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Jayne A. Spadaro appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 26, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Thus, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), and the court need not consider the sufficiency of the papers in opposition to the motion (see Lesane v Tejada, 15 AD3d 358 [2005]; Roberts v Carl Fenichel Community Servs., Inc., 13 AD3d 511 [2004]; Kolosovskiy v Vitale, 7 AD3d 579 [2004]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, 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, the defendant Jayne A. Spadaro appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 26, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Thus, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), and the court need not consider the sufficiency of the papers in opposition to the motion (see Lesane v Tejada, 15 AD3d 358 [2005]; Roberts v Carl Fenichel Community Servs., Inc., 13 AD3d 511 [2004]; Kolosovskiy v Vitale, 7 AD3d 579 [2004]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Birnbaum v. Constanza, 17 A.D.3d 304, 791 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 304 (Birnbaum v. Constanza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related