Bua v. South Shore Skating, Inc.

193 A.D.2d 774, 598 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 24, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 774 (Bua v. South Shore Skating, 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
Bua v. South Shore Skating, Inc., 193 A.D.2d 774, 598 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated January 22, 1991, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

To obtain summary judgment " 'it is necessary that the movant establish [its] cause of action or defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in [its] favor (CPLR 3212, subd Ob]), and [it] must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form’ ” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, quoting Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted, inter alia, portions of the examinations before trial of the plaintiffs, i.e., the injured infant and her mother. This probative evidence indicated that the infant plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of "sudden and abrupt action” by an unknown skater which "could not have been anticipated or avoided by the most intense supervision” (Baker v Eastman Kodak Co., 34 AD2d 886, affd 28 NY2d 636). Under these circumstances, liability cannot be imposed on the rink’s owner (see, Baker v Eastman Kodak Co., supra; Taynor v Skate Grove, 150 AD2d 362; see, Blashka v South Shore Skating, 193 AD2d 772 [decided herewith]). The plaintiffs’ opposition consists of an attorney’s affirmation which is insufficient, as a matter of law, to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, Vermette v Kenworth Truck Co., 68 NY2d 714.)

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Convey v. City of Rye School District
271 A.D.2d 154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Shamelashvili v. City of New York
262 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Nunez v. Recreation Rooms & Settlement, Inc.
229 A.D.2d 359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Griffin v. County of Orange
210 A.D.2d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Greenberg v. North Shore Central School District No. 1
209 A.D.2d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Winter v. City of New York
208 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink
201 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 A.D.2d 774, 598 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bua-v-south-shore-skating-inc-nyappdiv-1993.