Bonifer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonifer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

17 A.D.3d 387, 792 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870

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

DecidedApril 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 387 (Bonifer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.) 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

Bonifer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 17 A.D.3d 387, 792 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated June 8, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to make out a prima facie case entitling it to judgment as a matter of law (see O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]; Katz v PRO Form Fitness, 3 AD3d 474, 475 [2004]; Kucera v Walbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531, 532 [2003]). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated June 8, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to make out a prima facie case entitling it to judgment as a matter of law (see O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]; Katz v PRO Form Fitness, 3 AD3d 474, 475 [2004]; Kucera v Walbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531, 532 [2003]). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 387, 792 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonifer-v-home-depot-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack