Chiusano v. Carris Reels, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiusano v. Carris Reels, Inc.

5 A.D.3d 716, 773 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 716 (Chiusano v. Carris Reels, 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

Chiusano v. Carris Reels, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 716, 773 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated January 22, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated January 22, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 716, 773 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiusano-v-carris-reels-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack