Cadigan v. Rockbottom Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadigan v. Rockbottom Stores, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 492, 698 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12236

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 492 (Cadigan v. Rockbottom Stores, 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

Cadigan v. Rockbottom Stores, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 492, 698 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 3, 1998, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendants, Rockbottom Stores, Inc., and Anthony D’Alto, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established prima facie that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the plaintiffs failed to offer admissible evidence in opposition to the motions sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 3, 1998, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendants, Rockbottom Stores, Inc., and Anthony D’Alto, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established prima facie that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the plaintiffs failed to offer admissible evidence in opposition to the motions sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 492, 698 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadigan-v-rockbottom-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack