Byrd v. Naasira

43 A.D.3d 848, 840 N.Y.S.2d 921

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 15, 2006, which [849]*849granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 582-583 [1997]; Odi v Lifetouch, Inc,, 35 AD3d 420 [2006]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Byrd v. Naasira, 43 A.D.3d 848, 840 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

43 A.D.3d 848 (Byrd v. Naasira) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Di Ponzio v. Riordan
679 N.E.2d 616 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
Olan v. Farrell Lines Inc.
479 N.E.2d 229 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Odi v. Lifetouch, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)