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

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 451 (Crawford v. L.S.S. Leasing Corp.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-lss-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack