Camardella v. Valley Market

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camardella v. Valley Market

215 A.D.2d 712, 627 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746

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

DecidedMay 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 712 (Camardella v. Valley Market) 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

Camardella v. Valley Market, 215 A.D.2d 712, 627 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Su[713]*713preme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered March 16, 1994, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the decision entered February 17, 1994, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants having established their entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of material issues of fact by evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Woods v Zik Realty Corp., 172 AD2d 606). The plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that the mere placement of an air pump on the side of a building near a walkway constituted negligence is insufficient to meet that burden. Thus, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Su[713]*713preme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered March 16, 1994, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the decision entered February 17, 1994, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants having established their entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of material issues of fact by evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Woods v Zik Realty Corp., 172 AD2d 606). The plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that the mere placement of an air pump on the side of a building near a walkway constituted negligence is insufficient to meet that burden. Thus, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 712, 627 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camardella-v-valley-market-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack