Caster v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caster v. State

267 A.D.2d 1003, 700 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

DocketClaim No. 95499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1003 (Caster v. State) 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

Caster v. State, 267 A.D.2d 1003, 700 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and claim reinstated. Memorandum: The Court of Claims erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Defendant failed to present competent evidence refuting the allegations in the claim as amplified by the bill of particulars (see, Balnys v Town of New Baltimore, 160 AD2d 1136; see also, DiPace v Figueroa, 223 AD2d 949, 951), attributing the accident to “the incline on which the exhibition was set up”. Defendant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Patti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and claim reinstated. Memorandum: The Court of Claims erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Defendant failed to present competent evidence refuting the allegations in the claim as amplified by the bill of particulars (see, Balnys v Town of New Baltimore, 160 AD2d 1136; see also, DiPace v Figueroa, 223 AD2d 949, 951), attributing the accident to “the incline on which the exhibition was set up”. Defendant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Patti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1003, 700 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caster-v-state-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack