Cruz v. Martins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Martins

35 A.D.3d 524, 824 N.Y.S.2d 747

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 524 (Cruz v. Martins) 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

Cruz v. Martins, 35 A.D.3d 524, 824 N.Y.S.2d 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Luciano E Martins appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 5, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him, the defendant Luciano E Martins failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alonso v Branchinelli, 277 AD2d 408 [2000]). Thus, the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, 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 defendant Luciano E Martins appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 5, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him, the defendant Luciano E Martins failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alonso v Branchinelli, 277 AD2d 408 [2000]). Thus, the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 524, 824 N.Y.S.2d 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-martins-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack