Cincotta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cincotta v. City of New York

292 A.D.2d 558, 739 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3165

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 558 (Cincotta v. City of New York) 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

Cincotta v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 558, 739 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to [559]*559recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants VRD Construction Corp., Bruzzese & Sons Construction Corp., and Vincent Bruzzese appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Bruno, J.), dated May 7, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

The appellants failed to satisfy their initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by eliminating any triable issues of fact from the case (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the appellants’ motion was based solely on claimed deficiencies in the plaintiffs proof, it was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Carrington v Commissioner of Westchester County Correctional Facility, 278 AD2d 352; Sterling v Town of Hempstead, 260 AD2d 628). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to [559]*559recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants VRD Construction Corp., Bruzzese & Sons Construction Corp., and Vincent Bruzzese appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Bruno, J.), dated May 7, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

The appellants failed to satisfy their initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by eliminating any triable issues of fact from the case (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the appellants’ motion was based solely on claimed deficiencies in the plaintiffs proof, it was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Carrington v Commissioner of Westchester County Correctional Facility, 278 AD2d 352; Sterling v Town of Hempstead, 260 AD2d 628). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 558, 739 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincotta-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack