DuLuc v. Resnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DuLuc v. Resnick

224 A.D.2d 210, 637 N.Y.S.2d 146

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 210 (DuLuc v. Resnick) 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

DuLuc v. Resnick, 224 A.D.2d 210, 637 N.Y.S.2d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 5, 1994, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant Renate Gill’s cross-motion for summary judgment in her favor and dismissed the third-party action, unanimously reversed, on the law, the cross-motion denied, and the third-party action reinstated, without costs.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be [211]*211granted if there is a material and triable issue of fact presented (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). If there is any doubt as to the existence of such an issue, or if the issue is "arguable”, a motion for summary judgment should be denied (supra).

We disagree with the IAS Court’s assessment that no view of the record here would permit liability to be imposed upon third-party defendant Renate Gill for the injuries suffered by her brother, plaintiff Ramon DuLuc. Plaintiff alleges that as his wife, his sister and he were exiting a store, an extension ladder being used in an air conditioning repair on a windy day fell from the side of the building and struck him on the head. While there is support in the record for plaintiff’s version of events, the affidavits and transcripts of the examinations before trial had thus far also demonstrate support for defendant and third-party plaintiff Desirable Temperature Corp.’s alternative theory of the accident. Desirable asserts that the injuries were caused when Gill knocked the protective traffic cone and ladder down with a car that she parked in a space adjacent to where the ladder had been set up. Among other things, Desirable’s employee testified that it was a still and sunny day and that the front driver’s door of the car was open at about the time of the accident. The car, which was parked straddling two spaces according to this witness, was found atop the protective work cone. Resolution of such factual disputes is beyond the role of the court on a summary judgment motion and is best left to the finder of fact at a plenary trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 5, 1994, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant Renate Gill’s cross-motion for summary judgment in her favor and dismissed the third-party action, unanimously reversed, on the law, the cross-motion denied, and the third-party action reinstated, without costs.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be [211]*211granted if there is a material and triable issue of fact presented (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). If there is any doubt as to the existence of such an issue, or if the issue is "arguable”, a motion for summary judgment should be denied (supra).

We disagree with the IAS Court’s assessment that no view of the record here would permit liability to be imposed upon third-party defendant Renate Gill for the injuries suffered by her brother, plaintiff Ramon DuLuc. Plaintiff alleges that as his wife, his sister and he were exiting a store, an extension ladder being used in an air conditioning repair on a windy day fell from the side of the building and struck him on the head. While there is support in the record for plaintiff’s version of events, the affidavits and transcripts of the examinations before trial had thus far also demonstrate support for defendant and third-party plaintiff Desirable Temperature Corp.’s alternative theory of the accident. Desirable asserts that the injuries were caused when Gill knocked the protective traffic cone and ladder down with a car that she parked in a space adjacent to where the ladder had been set up. Among other things, Desirable’s employee testified that it was a still and sunny day and that the front driver’s door of the car was open at about the time of the accident. The car, which was parked straddling two spaces according to this witness, was found atop the protective work cone. Resolution of such factual disputes is beyond the role of the court on a summary judgment motion and is best left to the finder of fact at a plenary trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 210, 637 N.Y.S.2d 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duluc-v-resnick-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack