Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co.

266 A.D.2d 53, 698 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11594

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 53 (Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co.) 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

Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co., 266 A.D.2d 53, 698 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered September 1, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since plaintiff was unable, in response to defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, to demonstrate any triable issue as to whether her fall was attributable to a defective condition for which defendants had been responsible. “The mere fact that [plaintiff] fell and sustained injury [did] not constitute negligence” (Williams v Port Auth., 247 AD2d 296, 297). The court also correctly denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, since it was based on nothing more than the hope that additional evidence supporting her claims would be uncovered (see, Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 636). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered September 1, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since plaintiff was unable, in response to defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, to demonstrate any triable issue as to whether her fall was attributable to a defective condition for which defendants had been responsible. “The mere fact that [plaintiff] fell and sustained injury [did] not constitute negligence” (Williams v Port Auth., 247 AD2d 296, 297). The court also correctly denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, since it was based on nothing more than the hope that additional evidence supporting her claims would be uncovered (see, Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 636). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 53, 698 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamint-v-ml-burke-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack