Child v. Suffolk County Water Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Child v. Suffolk County Water Authority

283 A.D.2d 537, 725 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5217

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 537 (Child v. Suffolk County Water Authority) 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

Child v. Suffolk County Water Authority, 283 A.D.2d 537, 725 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Suffolk County Water Authority and Joseph G. Sorgie appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated September 14, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to that motion was insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact (see, Abitol v Schiff, 276 AD2d 571). Mere speculation that the appellants may have failed to take some unspecified measure to avoid the accident, or in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident, without evidentiary support in the record, is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Mehring v Cahill, 271 AD2d 415). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing [538]*538the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller 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 defendants Suffolk County Water Authority and Joseph G. Sorgie appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated September 14, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to that motion was insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact (see, Abitol v Schiff, 276 AD2d 571). Mere speculation that the appellants may have failed to take some unspecified measure to avoid the accident, or in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident, without evidentiary support in the record, is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Mehring v Cahill, 271 AD2d 415). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing [538]*538the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 537, 725 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/child-v-suffolk-county-water-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack