Crawford v. L.S.S. Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. L.S.S. Leasing Corp.

210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to [452]*452recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated July 7, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish their entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint as a matter of law. The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to allege evidentiary facts sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial of the action. The plaintiff’s opposition papers, which consisted solely of an attorney’s affirmation, failed to show that the affiant had any personal knowledge of the pertinent facts. The papers were therefore insufficient as a matter of law, and it was error for the Supreme Court to have denied the defendants’ motion (see, Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 AD2d 696, 699). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to [452]*452recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated July 7, 1993, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish their entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint as a matter of law. The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to allege evidentiary facts sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial of the action. The plaintiff’s opposition papers, which consisted solely of an attorney’s affirmation, failed to show that the affiant had any personal knowledge of the pertinent facts. The papers were therefore insufficient as a matter of law, and it was error for the Supreme Court to have denied the defendants’ motion (see, Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 AD2d 696, 699). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Crawford v. L.S.S. Leasing Corp., 210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 451 (Crawford v. L.S.S. Leasing Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related