Cotsalas v. Ottaviano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cotsalas v. Ottaviano

26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 467

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 456 (Cotsalas v. Ottaviano) 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

Cotsalas v. Ottaviano, 26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 22, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Hauppauge Youth Organization for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Here, the defendant Hauppauge Youth Organization demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Dillon, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 22, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Hauppauge Youth Organization for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Here, the defendant Hauppauge Youth Organization demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotsalas-v-ottaviano-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack